URL 


Patristic  and  Talmudic  Studies. 


FROM  THE  GERMAN  OF  DR.  M.  FRIEDLANDER. 


CTOSIEIFIH: 


MOSA1SM  AND  PLATONISM. 


The  writings  of  the  fathers  of  the  church 
of  recent  centuries  differ  widely  from  those 
which  appeared  in  the  times  of  the  first 
teachers  of  the  new  faith.  While  the  former 
offer  too  much  shade,  the  latter  present 
more  light.  Although  occasionally,  Janus- 
faced,  glancing  very  fondly  with  one  eye 
into  far  distant  regions,  ogling  the 
heathen  world,  from  which  they  had  not 
yet  entirely  severed  their  connection,  yet 
the  other  eye  was  exclusively  devoted  to  us, 
and  with  it  they  looked  at  us  so  charmingly 
pleasant,  so  faithfully  true,  that  we  could 
no  longer  bear  any  grudge  against  them. 
Still  we  could  not  oblige  them  so  much  as 
to  accept  that  Platonic  love  with  which 
they  wished  to  make  us  happy.  Plato  had 
won  them  completely,  had  ensnared  them 
with  his  highly  poetical  philosophy.  In- 
toxicated with  this  Platonic  draught,  they 
turned  to  the  Jewish  Mysteries  and — singu- 
lar! before  their  deluded  eyes  stood  their 
Plato,  his  very  self.  How  came  he  in  these 
works?  How  came  this  heathen  Saul  among 
the  prophets?  This  burning  question  had 
to  be  answered  and  an  answer  was  soon 
found.  Plato— so  the  answer  ran — had  at- 
tended the  Jewish  schools,  had  studied 
thoroughly  the  Mosaic  law,  and  had  trans- 
lated it  into  his  beloved  Greek.* 

This  seemingly  harmless  phrase  became 
in  course  of  time  a  firm  basis,  on  which  the 
fathers  of  the  church  built  a  powerful,  re- 
ligious, philosophical  system.  A  bridge  be- 
tween this  side  and  the  other  was  thus 
found;  nay,  it  had  existed  long  ago,  but  the 
deluded  people  could  not  see  it.  According 


« Euueb.  Praep.  Evang.  Lib.  iz.   6.    Clem.   Alex. 
Strom.  Lib.  i. 


to  this  discovery,  Plato's  divine  philosophy 
originated  in  the  Mosaic  law;  it  was,  there- 
fore, holy  and  could  no  more  be  forsaken. 
It  was  now  an  invaluable  treasure.  The 
Jewish  law  naturally  felt  itself  highly  flat- 
tered and  much  rejuvenated  when  it  heard 
that  such  a  glorious  scholar  as  Plato  had  de- 
rived all  his  philosophy  from  its  source. 
With  this  new  adornment  it  could  display 
itself,  with  great  advantage,  among  the 
philosophers  of  heathendom.  From  this 
forcible  union  of  Mosaism  with  Platonism 
new  products  arose,  which  departed  from 
the  doctrines  of  both,  and  which  made 
every  possible  effort  to  cause-  confusion  in 
both,  and  finally  boasted  of  having  refuted 
the  arguments  of  spariousness  and  apostasy 
which  had  been  made  by  both. 

REPROACHES    MADE     AGAINST    CHRISTIANS    BY 
JEWS  AND   HEATHENS. 

The  heathens,  namely,  reproached  the 
Christians — as  the  fathers  of  the  church  re- 
peatedly report — that  they  have  frivolously 
turned  their  back  to  all  the  customs  and 
manners  of  their  fathers,  to  precipitate 
themselves  into  the  ocean  of  Jewish  myths 
and  fables;  that  at  the  same  time  they 
neither  worship  the  God  of  the  Jews  nor 
practice  their  laws;  that  they  have  adopted 
a  path,  shunned  by  both,  to  which  neither 
Greek  nor  barbarian  traces  lead.t 

The  Jews  considered  it  very  presumptu- 
ous in  the  Christians  that  they,  as  strangers 
and  renegades  from  a  heathenish  camp,  had 
dared  to  attack  the  religion  of  their  fathers 
in  an  insolent  and  shameless  manner.! 


t  Ib.  Lib.  i.  2;  Lib.  xvi.    So  also  says  the  Jew  of 
Celsug  Orig.  Contr.  Cels.  Lib.  ii. 
I  Praep.  Evang.  i.  2. 


—  2  — 


Because — thought  they — if  a  Christ  really 
had  been  foretold  in  their  sacred  writings, 
it  was  done  by  Jewish  prophets,  and  these 
would  have  promised  him  to  Jews  alone  and 
not  to  other  nations.  What  else  of  good 
and  beautiful  had  been  promised  concerned 
the  Jews  alone;  the  Christians,  however, 
committed  great  wrongs  in  claiming  for 
themselves  all  that  had  been  promised  to 
the  Jews  exclusively;  that  they  committed 
irreparable  wrongs  by  basing  these  promises 
on  false  rendering  of  Scriptures.*  Their 
manner  of  hunting  with  eagerness  after 
every  evil  that  had  been  proclaimed  against 
them  and  of  flinging  it  into  their  faces 
whenever  a  chance  presented  itself,  they 
considered  highly  disgraceful,  and  as  a  still 
greater  outrage  did  they  regard  their  mar- 
velous silence  about  all  those  bright  and 
joyous  promises  for  their  future,  or,  when 
obliged  to  speak,  their  taking  it  all  for  them- 
selves. This  was  the  greatest  folly  of  all,  so 
contrary  to  all  human  reason,  to  claim  for 
themselves  the  rewards  promised  for  the 
observance  of  the  Mosaic  law,  to  which  they 
never  adhered. t 

Who  will  deny  that  these  reproaches,  re- 
sults of  sound  reasoning,  had  their  full 
authorization.  It  is*  indeed,  a  very  pre- 
sumptuous act  to  invade  a  strange,  entirely 
unknown  region,  to  snatch  it  from  him  who 
possessed  it  for  thousands  of  years;  to  destroy 
the  old,  juicy  plants  and  in  their  stead  plant 
a  variegated,  fascinating  imitation  of  a  plant, 
imported  from  distant  regions,  and  more- 
over to  force  the  unhappy  possessor,  not  only 
to  disavow  all  claims  upon  his  ancient  in- 
heritance, but  also  to  compel  him  to  deny 
it  most  emphatically  and  to  exert  himself  to 
his  utmost  to  bring  natural  and  unnatural 
proofs  that  this  state  of  affairs,  which  had 
just  now  been  established,  has  already  ex- 
isted for  ages,  thus  whet  the  murderous 
knife  with  his  own  hands  to  extinguish 
with  it  the  spark  of  life,  and  dying  to  ex 
claim:  Thus  has  God  decreed  it  in  His  holy 
writings  centuries  ago!  It  is  self-evident 
that  at  such  impertinent  demand  the  Jew 
exclaimed  with  the  prophet:  "I  had  a  vine- 
yard on  a  rich  hill-top  and  I  fenced  it  in 
and  cleared  it  of  stones,  and  planted  it  with 
the  choicest  vines,  and  built  a  tower  in  its 
midst  and  also  a  vine-press  I  hewed  out 
therein,  and  I  hoped  that  it  should  bring 
forth  grapes,  and  it  brought  forth — worthless 
fruit"  Or  was  he  not  obliged  to  oppose  the 
impetuous  invader  with  the  words  of  the 
same  prophet  "When  ye  come  to  appear  in 
my  presence,  w  10  has  required  this  at  your 
hand  to  tread  down  my  courts?" 


*  Praep.  Kvang.  i.  2. 
flbid. 


These  reproaches,  made  by  the  Jews 
against  the  Christians  of  the  first  centuries, 
based  on  good  reason,  and  the  mutilations 
of  Scriptural  passages  from  the  hands  of  the 
Christians,  were  still  not  of  such  a  nature 
as  to  cause  ill  will  or  a  spirit  of  persecution 
among  them.  How  striking  is  the  contrast 
between  these  representatives  of  Chris- 
tianity and  their  fanatical  and  persecuting 
successors?  The  former  were  people  en- 
dowed with  humane  feelings  and  imbued 
with  a  sacrificing  love  for  their  neighbors  of 
different  persuasion,  whose  only  fault  ex- 
isted in  revelling  upon  the  open  and  dan- 
gerous sea  in  a  tottering,  loosely  -constructed 
vessel  whose  sails  were  filled  with  religious 
enthusiasm,  and  all  this  with  the  firmest 
conviction  that  they  possessed  the  safest 
compass  and  the  most  infallible  basis. 

How  could  it  be  otherwise?  Filled  with 
the  Platonic  philosophy,  were  they  not 
completely  overcome  when  they  thought 
they  had  found  the  same  doctrines  in  the 
Old  Testament?  They  could  hold  back  no 
longer.  They  poured  as  much  of  their  holy 
ardor  as  could  be  obtained  over  the  heads 
of  the  indifferent  Jews.  "One  must  be  a 
Jew,"  exclaims  Origenes  in  ecstasy,  "to  be 
contented  with  the  natural  sense  of  Scrip- 
tures, here  is  deep  philosophy  hidden  every- 
where." 

BIBLE    ENTHUSIASM. 

Although  both  adhered  with  the  same 
fervor  and  devotednesa  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, yet  they  could  not  understand  each 
other.  There  existed  between  both  parties 
differences  somewhat  similar  to  that  which 
is  manifested  in  the  indolent,  miseducated, 
sentimental  city  dweller,and  the  sober,  unso- 
phisticated farmer  who  toils  in  the  sweat 
of  his  face.  Place  the  former  in  a  luxur- 
ious rural  oistrict  and  there  is  no  limit  to 
his  admiration;  his  frantic  enthusiasm  finds 
no  end;  he  loses  himself  gradually  in  this 
revery,  climbs  to  its  misty  hights  further  and 
further;  the  ground  beneath  him  spems  to 
reel;  he  notices  it  not;  his  excited  phantasy 
has  transplanted  him  from  reality.  Partly 
with  compassion  and  partly  with  disgust  he 
regards  the  farmer  below  who,  in  the  midst 
of  such  sublime  scenes,  pursues  his  prosaic 
vocation  without  sharing  his  ecstasy,  who 
even  turns  aside  from  him  who  indulges 
such  indolent  enjoyment,  and  absorbs  him- 
self in  his  healthy  labor.  This  reminds  us 
very  forcibly  of  the  following  words  of 
Germany's  great  poet,  with  which  he  ad- 
dresses a  metaphysician,  who  is  very  con- 
ceited of  his  own  wit: 

,,2Bte  tief  Uegt  unter  mir  bie  SBelt ! 

flaunt  fefy'  t$  nod?  bie  2flenfdjlein  unten  toallen, 

SBte  tragt  mt$  meine  flunft,  bie  fyocfyfte  unter  alien, 


—  3  — 


<5o  nafye  an  be$  £tmmel' 

@o  ruft  Don  feineS  X 

2)er  ©djieferbecfer,  fo  bet  Heine,  grofie  3Wann, 

§an8  SJZetatob^fthig,  in  feinem  @d}retbgemad}e. 

,,<5ag'  an,  bu  fleiner,  grofcer  SRann, 

2)er  £b.urm,    toon  bent   bein  93Urf  fo  toornefym 

nieberfdjaut, 

SBobon  ift  er—  ttwauf  ift  er  gebaut? 
3Bie  lamft  bu  felbft  fyinauf — unb  feine  fallen  frozen, 
SBoju  finb  fie  bir  niife'  ate  in  ba§  Xtyal  ju  fe$en  ? " 

As  this  metaphysician,  so  the  fathers  of 
the  church  looked  from  the  heights  of  their 
Platonic  Bible  enthusiasm  at  the  prosaic 
Jews,  who,  situated  in  a  God  like  paradise, 
contented  themselves  with  a  very  plain, 
strength-nurturing  diet,  who  could  not  be 
induced  to  partake  of  the  delicious  nee 
tar  and  the  eternal  youth-conferring  am- 
brosia, so  bountiful  on  this  misty  height, 
who  even  preferred  the  piece  of  healthy 
bread,  the  result  of  their  own  handiwork, 
to  all  their  fabulous,  celestial  mama, 
which  vanished  into  nothingness  as  soon  as 
it  was  brought  into  clear  sunshine.  The 
fact  is  the  Jews  were  and  remained  rational 
in  their  religious  intuitive  vision.  They 
also  understood  the  loose  game  of  Bible 
exegetics,  but  with  them  its  influence  was 
never  more  than  that  of  a  game.  The  very 
essence  of  their  existence,  namely,  mono- 
theism, was  not  to  be  touched,  else  their 
kind  disposition  and  good  nature  was  at  an 
end.  And  it  did  come  to  an  end  when  the 
apostles  of  the  new  doctrine,  who,  infatuated 
with  the  Platonic  philosophy,  would  get 
scent  of  a  new  philosophical  system  in  every 
word  of  the  Old  Testament,  forced  them- 
selves among  them,  disputed  with  unheard 
of  audacity  with  their  teachers,  and  criti- 
cised their  actions  in  a  shameless  manner. 
The  method  of  training  the  old,  monotheistic 
religion  to  their  new  systems  found  no  at- 
tentive ear  among  the  Jews.  Such  a  method 
could  never  promise  itself  a  popularity 
among  that  people.  Traditional  Judaism 
has  denied  its  own  sons  who  had  tried  to 
accomplish  this.  The  Aristobnles  and  the 
Philos,  whom  the  fathers  of  the  church 
raised  to  the  very  sky,  and  whom  they 
blindly  followed  through  thick  and  thin, 
are  entirely  ignored;  Talmudic  literature 
has  nothing  to  report  of  them.  The  great 
mass  knew  them  not  and  the  present  genera- 
tion knows  them  scarcely  by  name.  They 
have  rendered  great  service  to  heathenism, 
to  whom  they  opened  the  Jewish  treasures, 
but  none  to  Judaism,  which  had  philosophi- 
cally evaporated  under  their  handling.  But 
of  this  we  will  speak  later. 

We  said  that  the  fathers  of  the  church 
during  the  first  centuries  stood  in  very  close 
relationship  with  Judaism,  and  this  existed 


in  their  clasping  the  Bible  with  all  their 
might,  considering  it  the  purest,  holiest  and 
most  divine  source,  from  which  issued  their 
own  religion.  No  Jew  has  ever  believed 
the  divine  origin  of  the  Bible  more  posi- 
tively and  more  devoutly  than  these;  no  one 
has  made  greater  efforts  to  have  it  promul- 
gated and  to  find  recognition  for  it  from  all 
sides.  They  have  delivered  the  Jewish 
literature  to  the  world,  have  sent  forth  many 
streams  from  the  Mosaic  source.  And  with 
what  incessant  diligence  is  its  praise  spread. 
The  whole  Pagan  literature  is  attacked  by 
them,  only  to  bring  evidence  of  the  truth 
and  the  old  age  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Poesy  and  prose  is  rummaged  to  gain,  per- 
haps, some  slight  spark  which  will  speak  for 
the  ancientness  of  Judaism  and  its  litera- 
ture. And  when  they  discovered  but  an 
ignis  fatmw  of  very  doubtful  luster  how  in- 
tensely is  it  entreated  to  loan  for  but  a  few 
moments  its  flaring  light.  It  is  quite  per- 
ceptible that  self-love  was  the  main  agent 
that  prompted  them  to  this  glorification  of 
Judaism;  for  it  is  self  evident  that,  if  it  is 
once  shown  that  the  Jewish  root  is  beyond 
any  doubt  an  ancient,  healthy,  age-defying 
radix,  the  trunk  issuing  from  such  a  primi- 
tive form  must  necessarily  be  strong  and 
entitled  to  great  hopes. 

EUSEBIUS  CITES  GRECIAN  AUTHORS  WHO  SPEAK 
FAVORABLY   OF  JUDAISM. 

This  continual  activity  of  the  young  church 
in  playing  the  mediator  between  heathen- 
ism and  Judaism  is  demonstrated  so  clearly 
in  the  case  of  Eusobius  that  there  is  no  dif- 
ficulty in  pursuing  the  course  of  this  new 
doctrine  through  the  stages  of  its  prepara- 
tion, development  and  ultimate  result.  The 
charges  preferred  against  Christianity  by 
the  pagans,  that  they  had  blindly  surren- 
dered themselves  to  the  Jewish  mania  for 
miracles,  had  to  be,  if  not  entirely  removed, 
greatly  weakened,  and  this  could  only  be 
accomplished  by  producing  indisputable 
evidence  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Jewish 
religion.  If  they  succeeded  even  by  finding 
but  a  few  straws  in  the  heathen  literature 
for  support,  their  position  in  the  eyes  of 
the  pagans  would  be  far  more  favorable. 

With  this  object  in  view,  Eusebius  says 
in  his  preface  to  the  ix.  volume  of  the  Prae- 
per.  Evang.:  "  It  is  high  time,  since  it  baa 
been  proven  already  that  the  Jewish  oracle* 
were  not  heedlessly  accepted  by  Chris- 
tianity, but  only  after  mature  considera- 
tion, to  show  that  Judaism  with  all  ita 
organization  was  well  known  to  the  most 
renowned  Grecian  authors,  that  some  show- 
ered praises  on  them  while  others  even 
pursued  a  similar  theology."* 

*Eoseb..Praep.  Evang.  vol.  ix  preface. 


—  4  — 


""We  shall  necessarily  have  to  show,"  he 
continues,"  that  many  Grecian  authors  make 
mention  of  the  Jews  and  Hebrews  as  well  as 
of  their  philosophy,  which  flourished  even 
in  early  times.  This  fact  will  explain  that 
not  without  counsel  and  judicious  circum- 
spection have  we  concluded  to  prefer  the 
Jewish  philosophy  to  that  of  the  pagans." 

The  manner  of  proof  is,  indeed,  very 
primitive.  Passages  are  cited  from  Por- 
phyrius,  which  he  again  had  copied  from 
older  authors,  and  which  sound  so  heath en- 
ifih  that  the  deceived  mind  can  discover 
therein  nothing  else  but  a  glorification  of  the 
Jews.  Very  curious  stories  are  frequently 
told  of  them  and  of  their  ways  of  life  re- 
garded with  heathen  eyes,  and  from  this 
standpoint  highly  praised.  Among  other 
matters  their  sacrificial  culte  is  very  defin- 
itely spoken  of.  Their  sober  and  aecetic 
manner  of  life  is  very  emphatically  men- 
tioned. Special  praises  are  bestowed  upon 
them,  because  "  on  certain  holy  days  they 
devote  themselves  entirely,  throughout  the 
whole  day,  to  their  God  (which  is  very  appro- 
priate for  a  philosophical  sect),  and  in  the 
evening  with  upturned  eyes,  looking  at  the 
stars,  they  offer  praise  to  their  God"  (Lib. 
ix.  2).  Further  proofs  for  his  assertions  he 
finds  in  Ilecateus,  "  who  does  not  only  dis- 
tinguish himself  as  a  philosopher,  but  also 
as  a  social  man,"  and  who  had  dedicated  a 
volume  to  Jewish  history.  Whatever  he 
reports  has  reference  to  external  appear- 
ances alone,  which  clearly  shows  us  that 
he  never  had  an  insight  into  the  internal 
development  of  the  Jews. 

We  find  verbose  descriptions  of  the  coun- 
try, city  and  Temple.  Special  mention  is 
made  of  the  fact  that  an  image  of  a  god,  a 
grove  or  any  similar  emblem  of  idolatry  can 
nowhere  be  found ;  that  the  priests  take  an 
active  part  in  bringing  the  offerings;  that 
they  were,  moreover,  forbidden  the  use  of 
wine.  In  conclusion  he  narrated  an  interest- 
ing story,  in  which  the  hero  is  a  Jew,  who 
has  highly  distinguished  himself  for  being 
entirely  free  from  prejudice. 

An  important  discovery,  and  one  which 
was  of  great  service  to  Eusebius,he  believes 
to  have  been  made  in  the  peripatetic  Clear- 
ch  us.  But  Eusebius  was  not  aware  that  the 
passages  of  this  author  had  been  interpreted 
before  by  Clemens  of  Alexandria  (Strom;  L). 
C'learchus  finds  passages,  even  in  Aristotle, 
in  which  honorable  mention  is  made  of  the 
Hebrews.  "  What  I  have  to  tell  you  about 
this  subject,"  thus  Clearch  us  makes  his  great 
philosophical  beginning,  "will  seem  to  you 
very  strange  and  peculiar." 

Here  he  tells  us  of  a  most  excellent  Jew, 
who  in  customs  and  language  was  entirely 
Grecian,  and  whose  acquaintance  Aristotle 


had  accidentally  made  in  Asia.  There  many 
philosophers  frequently  met,  questions  of 
great  importance  were  discussed,  in  which 
this  Jew  had  rendered  greater  service  to 
these  sages  than  they  had  to  him. 

Having  finished  with  Clemens,  Eusebius 
begins  with  Nuina,  King  of  Rome.  As  a 
follower  of  Pythagoras,  he  said,  he  copied 
from  Moses  the  manner  of  divine  worship, 
prohibited  his  subjects  every  plastic  repre- 
sentation of  the  deity,  and  taught  them  that 
God  can  only  be  conceived  as  spiritual,  never 
as  corporeal.  This  is  the  cause  that  the  Re- 
mans during  the  first  one  hundred  and 
seventy  years,  though  building  many  tem- 
ples, never  decorated  them  with  any  like- 
ness of  the  deity. 

Passages  like  these  are  for  the  fathers  of 
the  church  invaluable  treasures,  and  they 
gather  them  with  unceasing  diligence. 
When  the  Pythagorean  philosopher,  Nume- 
nius,  ingenuously  drops  a  werd  about  the  re- 
lationship between  the  Platonic,  Jewish  and 
Eygptian  philosophy,  or  when  he  says  that 
the  prayers  of  Moses  had  great  influence 
with  God,  then  the  rejoicings  of  Eusebius 
and  his  colleagues  are  beyond  description, 
and,  with  many  thanks,  they  accept  these 
confessions  from  heathen  sources  as  the 
most  reliable  proof  of  the  divinity  of  the 
Jewish  religion  (ib.  L.  ix.  5). 

Poetry  also  was  rummaged,  and  the  dis- 
coveries in  this  branch  of  literature  were 
valued  much  more  since  they  originated  in 
the  works  of  one  of  the  oldest  poets,  Choari- 
bus.  According  to  him,  the  Jews  had  ac- 
companied Xerxes  in  his  expedition  against 
Greece.  He  reports  them  to  be  a  people 
wild  and  fear- inspiring;  their  language 
sounds  like  the  Phoenician;  their  home  is 
in  Solymis,  near  the  great  swamp.  Their  re- 
pulsive head,  shorn  all  round,  strikes  terror 
into  the  lines  of  the  enemy ;  instead  of  a 
helmet  they  wear  the  smoked  hide  of  a 
horse-head. 

Whether  this  description,  which  is  cer- 
tainly not  very  flattering  to  the  Jews,  is 
trae,  of  course  we  can  not  say.  The  fathers 
of  the  church  were  allured  by  the  antiquity 
of  this  poet,  and  his  reference  to  the  Jews 
had  to  be  noted.  Their  only  motive  in  cit- 
ing this  passage  was  the  geographical  posi- 
tion of  their  country,  which  left  no  doubt 
but  that  the  Jews  were  really  meant,  (ib.  9.) 

Not  yet  had  the  power  of  demonstrating 
the  good  old  age  of  Judaism  reached  its  high- 
est point.  Gradually  were  they  approach- 


ig  to  that  triumph,  a  success  which,  in  their 
ildest  expectation,  they  never  hoped  to 
realize.  Until  now,  great  men  had  spoken 
favorably  of  Judaism,  but  all  these  were 
only  men.  How,  now,  if  a  god  opens  his 
mouth  and  gives  certainty  to  their  claims  by 


—  5  — 


his  own  mentioning  of  the  Jews?  How,  if 
Appollo  himself,  is  lull  of  praise  of  Judaism 
in  his  oracles,  how  then  ?  Did  not  this  give 
the  heathen  theory  that  the  Christians  had 
precipitated  themselves  into  the  ocean  of 
Jewish  myth  and  fables — a  death  blow  ? 
And  Appollo  has  really  spoken  so,  and  Por- 
phyrius  had  learned  it  by  listening,  had 
carefully  marked  all  his  words,  and  had  ar- 
ranged them,  so  that  as  soon  as  the  fathers 
of  the  church  had  need  of  them,  they  might 
be  ready  for  use.* 

PROOFS  THAT  THE     GRECIAN?     PHILOSOPHY     IS 
DERIVED    FROM   JEWISH   SOURCES. 

The  little  we  have  said  so  far  will,  per- 
haps, suffice  to  show  what  steps  the  church 
took  during  the  first  few  centuries,  in  order 
to  approach  gradually,  its  ultimate  object, 
Christianity.  The  next  ardent  wish  was 
to  prove  that  Jewish  theology  is  the  oldest, 
and  that  all  philosophy  originated  therein. 
The  entire  tenth  volume  of  the  Praep.Evang. 
treats  of  this  subject,  and  nearly  exhausts 
itself  in  endless  quotations.  The  Greeks  are 
here  frequently  accused  of  plagiarism,  they 
are  charged  with  a  want  of  originality,  that 
they  borrow  from  other  nations,  that  their 
alphabet  even  was  a  foreign  invention.  "It 
is  established,"  so  thinks  Easebius,  "  that 
Cadmus,  who  first  taught  the  Greeks 
grammar,  was  a  Phoanician,  which  fact  ex- 
plains why  some  of  the  ancients  call  the  let- 
ters Phoenician.  But  these  were  not  in- 
vented by  the  Syrians,  as  some  maintain,  but 
by  the  Hebrews.  At  the  very  first  glance  we 
notice  a  striking  resemblance  between  the 
names  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  alphabets. 
But  since  each  letter  of  the  former  contains  a 
hidden  meaning,  an  important  signification, 
which  fact  can  not  be  maintained  of  the  lat- 
ter, it  therefore  proves  conclusively  that  the 
letters  of  the  alphabet  are  not  of  a  Grecian, 
but  of  a  Hebrew  origin." 

Now  the  twenty-two  letters  of  the  alpha- 
bet are  scrutinized  one  by  one,  out  of  each 
separate  letter  a  meaning  is- forced,  then  an 
experiment  is  made  with  three  by  three, 
four  by  four,  and  so  on  in  every  possible 
manner  that  any  sense  could  be  forced 
by  means  of  combination. 

"  Anything  similar  to  this  " — so  Eusebius 
closes  this  favorite  subject,  of  which  he 
speaks  again  (xi.  6)—"  you  can  not  find 
among  the  Greeks,  and  you  can  not  help  but 
admit  that  the  facts  which  I  have  so  far  laid 
bare  clearly  show  that  the  alphabet  is  not 
the  possession  of  the  Greeks,  but  of  the 
Hebrews;  that  the  former  had  secretly  taken 
them  from  the  Jews,  and  with  but  slight 
changes  transferred  them  to  their  own 

*Ib.  10  Just.  Cohort,  ad  Grace,  c.  25  ed.  Otto. 


language.  What  difference  is  there  between 
Alpha  and  Aleph,  Betha  and  Beth,  Gamma 
and  Gimmel,  Delta  and  Daleth,  Zeta  and 
Zai,  Theta  and  Thet?  This  assures  us,  be- 
yond doubt,  that  the  alphabet  is  of  a  He- 
brew origin  and  not  of  a  Grecian,  since  each 
letter  has  sense  and  signification. "t 

By  this  discovery  Eusebius  makes  con- 
siberable  of  an  advance  toward  establishing 
his  views.  He  has  now  reached  such  an 
elevated  point  that  he  has  a  clear  view  on 
all  sides  and  can  therefore  work  with  greater 
ease.  If  it  is  once  clearly  settled  that  many 
Grecian  authorities  spoke  favorably  of  Ju- 
daism, if  it  is  beyond  all  doubt  that  its  an- 
tiquity reaches  far  beyond  any  other  re- 
ligion, if  finally  the  honesty  of  the  Greeks 
in  literary  affairs  is  questioned,  if  they  are 
even  caught  at  numerous  thefts,  then  is  he 
a  happy  Archimedes  who  has  found  a  stand- 
ing place  outside  of  the  earth,  from  which 
position  he  may  lift  her  out  of  her  hinges 
and  suspend  her  by  the  smallest  spider's 
web. 

PLATO,   A   PUPIL  OF   MOSES. 

"If  then" — so  Eusebius  says,  who  places 
us  in  medias  res  with  the  speed  of  an  arrow — 
"  if  then,  the  Greeks  coincide  in  their  views 
with  those  of  Jewish  theology  and  of  the 
prophets,  we  can  not  be  in  ignorance  for  a 
moment  in  what  quarters  we  must  look  for 
the  original.  The  thing  to  be  well  con- 
sidered here  is,  whether  the  older  took  their 
views  from  the  younger,  or  vice  versa. 
Whether  the  Hebrews  derived  their  views 
from  Grecian  philosophy,  which  they  were 
not  at  all  versed  in,  or  whether  the  Grecians 
borrowed  theirs  from  the  Hebrews,  whose 
literature  they  well  knew,  these  Greeks  who, 
moreover,  studied  with  the  greatest  energy 
the  customs  and  organizations  of  most  na- 
tions." (Ibid.  x.  8.)  And  now  we  are 
literally  drowned  in  a  flood  of  proofs,  whose 
object  it  is  to  show  that  Plato  philosophizes 
in  numberless  cases  like  Moses.  Eusebius 
takes  any  passage  out  of  the  Old  Testament, 
expounds  it,  enlarges  on  it,  unconsciously 
passes  a  Platonic  idea  into  his  interpreta- 
tions, and  then  he  rejoices  in  finding  that 
Plato  teaches  precisely  the  same  as  the  Old 
Testament.  A  few  examples  will  illustrate 
this  novel  way  of  expounding.  Eusebius 
finds  in  the  words  (Gen.  i.  26):  "Let  us 
make  in  our  image,"  the  doctrine  of  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  as  he  continues  in  his 
philosophy:  "The  substance  of  the  soul 
must  be  immortal,  because  the  soul  has  been 
created  in  the  image  of  God."  What  other 
meaning  does  image  and  likeness  of  God 
convey  but  the  imitation  of  the  qualities 


t  Praep.  Ev.  Lib.  x.  5;  Lib.  xi.  6. 


—  6 


and  virtues  of  God?  And  now  he  is  already 
deep  in  Platonic  philosophy,  and  exclaims, 
as  if  surprised  by  its  own  shadow:  "Exactly 
the  same,  Plato  teaches  in  his  Alcibiades,  so 
that  one  imagines  he  hears  a  pupil  of  Moses." 
(Ibid.  Lib.  xi.  27.)  . 

When  Plato  further  says:  "As  for  the  study 
of  law,  the  younger  disciples  should  not  be 
permitted  to  form  their  own  opinions  con- 
cerning it,  or  be  allowed  to  criticise  the 
same.  They  should  regard  it  as  sacred  and 
inviolable,  as  if  it  were  dictated  by  the 
Deity  itself.  But  if  any  of  the  older  ones 
find  therein  something  too  difficult  to  un- 
derstand, then  let  them  consult  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  law,  or  with  their  asso- 
ciates, to  which  discussions  the  younger 
disciples  must  not  be  admitted"  (de  Lege  i ). 
So  is  also  this  an  old  practice  among  the 
Jewish  savans,  from  whom  he  had  copied  it. 
As  a  proof  of  this,Ti)uBebius,  as  well  as  his 
predecessor,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  quotes 
a  verse  from  Jes.  7,  out  of  all  its  connec- 
tion and  falsely  interpreted,  which  in  Greek 
translation  reads:  "If  you  do  not  believe 
you  will  have  no  understanding;"  and  an- 
other similar  verse  from  the  115th  Psalm: 
"I  believed,  therefore  have  I  spoken." 
These  Platonic-Biblical  precepts,  says  our 
guarantor,  Christianity  also  has  adopted, 
since  this  branch  of  sacred  writings  could 
be  more  readily  grasped  by  the  yet  young 
members  of  the  new  faith.  To  enter  deeper 
into  it  requires  maturer  age.  In  fact,  Ease- 
bius  is  very  anxious  to  deduce  all  Platonic 
views  of  the  education  of  children  from  the 
Old  Testament.  Poor  Plato!  Let  him  but 
stir  and  they  are  pursuing  him  hard  with  the 
Biblical  whip.  "I  know,"  says  Plato,  "that 
the  beginning  of  everything  is  of  great  im 
portance,  and  we  must,  therefore,  have  re- 
gard for  the  tender  child,  whose  mental 
faculties  are  open  to  every  impression  and 
which  can  so  easily  be  harmfully  trained. 
Must  we  then  tell  the  child  all  sorts  of  tales 
and  fables?  By  no  means.  We  must,  on 
the  contrary,  examine  carefully  the  materia- 
to  be  narrated,  must  make  a  judicious  selecl 
tion  by  putting  aside  all  that  is  not  suited 
fora  child.  The  collection  of  stories,  gathered 
in  this  manner,  must  be  handed  over  to 
parents  and  nurses  in  time  with  special  in- 
structions, to  recite  them  continually  to  the 
child,  so  that  the  development  of  mind  and 
body  keep  equal  pace,"  etc.  This  view,  the 
result  of  plain  and  honest  thinking,  is  again 
considered  by  the  fathers  of  the  church,  as 
copied  from  Judaism.  "Since  we  all  know 
that  gifted  men  and  prophets,  imbued  with 
the  divine  spirit  of  the  Lord,  had  taught 
the  same,  and  that,  moreover,  Jewish 
parents  and  educators  had  long  since  pur- 


sued this  plan,  had  laid  a  good  foundation 
to  a  beneficial  education  by  reciting  to  the 
children  the  stories  and  events  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  from  which  they  hoped  the 
very  best  results/'  (Ibid.  xii.  5.) 

Every  other  remark  of  Plato  upon  this 
subject  is  similarly  treated.  When  he 
recommends  that  an  interest  should  be 
aroused  in  the  child  in  its  earliest  infancy 
for  that  subject  which  shall  be  its  profession 
when  it  grows  to  manhood,  that  is,  let  the 
child  play  with  the  plow,  build  houses,  etc., 
if  it  is  to  becoire  a  good  farmer  or  a  suc- 
cessful architect;  that  the  child  by  play  and 
profitable  amusement  must  be  gradually  ad- 
vanced to  the  reality  and  to  usefulness; 
then  again  no  credit  is  given  him  for  his 
original  researches,  he  has  again  copied  from 
Moses,  who  says:  "And  these  words  which 
I  command  thee  this  day  shall  be  in  thine 
heart.  And  thou  shall  teach  them  dili- 
gently unto  thy  children."  And  even  the 
following  words  of  Plato:  "Under  discipline 
I  understand  that  virtue  in  which  the  child 
has  perfected  itself  first  of  all.  This  virtue 
will  enable  it,  should  it  be  overpowered  by 
a  passion  of  any  sort,  to  select  the  right 
path,  hate  the  evil  and  love  the  good."  Also 
these  simple  words  we  find  in  the  much 
older  Psalmist,  which  are  supposed  to  con- 
vey the  same  meaning:  "Come  ye  children, 
hearken  unto  me.  I  will  teach  you  the  fear 
of  the  Lord.  What  man  is  he  thatdesireth 
life  and  loveth  many  days  that  he  may  see 
good?  Keep  thy  tongue  from  evil  and  do 
good;  seek  peace  and  pursue  it." 

PLATO'S  VIEWS    ON    THE  "CREATION    OP    THE 
WORLD  DERIVED  FROM  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

The  similarity  in  the  Platonicand  Biblical 
views  concerning  the  creation  of  the  world 
present  to  Eusebius  by  far  the  greatest  op- 
portunity for  displaying  his  childish  dilet- 
tanteism.  Here  he  not  only  discovers  a 
similarity  in  thoughts,  but  also  in  expres- 
sions. Moses  says:  "Let  there  be  lights  in 
the  firmanent  of  the  heaven  to  divide  the 
day  from  the  night,  and  let  them  be  for 
signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and 
years.  And  God  made  two  great  lights;  the 
greater  light  to  rule  the  day  and  the  lesser 
light  to  .rule  the  night  and  also  the  stars. 
And  God  set  them  in  the  firmanent  of  the 
heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth."  To 
this  the  following  words  of  Plato  are  placed 
in  close  connection:  "The  word  and  the  cog- 
nizance of  God  have  discovered  the  course 
of  the  sun,  moon  and  the  five  other  planets, 
to  serve  as  determinations  and  separations 
of  time,  and  God  created  and  fixed  them  for 
the  purpose  of  remaining  faithful  to  their 
courses." 


—  7  — 


"Here  you  plainly  see,"  exclaims  Eusebius, 
joyfully,  "that  the  words  of  Plato  correspond 
entirely  with  those  of  the  Old  Testament." 
He  says  nothing  more  than  that  which 
Moses  said  long  before  him:  "By  the  word 
of  God  the  heavens  were  made  and  by  the 
breath  of  his  mouth  all  his  hosts."  And 
when  Moses  says,  "And  God  placed  them 
in  the  firmament  of  the  heaven,"  etc.,  then 
Plato  writes,  "And  he  fixed  them  for  their 
course,"  etc.  (Ibid.  xi.  30.) 

We  will  follow  no  further  this  critical 
father  of  the  church  in  his  stray  wander- 
ings, because  it  is  in  the  first  place  too 
fatiguing,  and  in  the  second  place  the  ex- 
amples which  we  have  mentioned  will  am- 
ply suffice  to  answer  our  purpose.  If  we 
now  consider  the  amount  of  proofs,  gathered 
with  the  greatest  trouble  and  labor,  we  find 
that  two  questions  oppose  themselves  upon 
us;  first,  why  did  not  the  fathers  of  the 
church  adhere  to  Plato,  whom  they  loved  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  make  him  a  pupil  of 
Moses?  Secondly,  why  did  they  not  con- 
tent themselves  with  him  rather  than  throw 
themselves  into  the  arms  of  "his  teacher?" 
Both  questions  can  be  answered  from  one 
standpoint,  if  we  but  take  a  hasty  glance 
at  the  condition  of  the  heathens  during  that 
time  the  riddle  is  solved. 

PLATONISM    THE     STEPPING-STONE     TO     CHRIS- 
TIANITY. 

Heathenism  with  all  its  myths  and  fables 
had  come  to  an  end.  No  one  would  believe 
in  it  any  longer.  Olympus  with  its  gods  was 
left  in  the  lurch.  People  had  begun  to  look 
at  this  unapproachable  sacred  mount  with 
critical  eyes.  This  old  religion  could  weath- 
er the  storm  no  longer;  a  new  one  was  ex- 
pected to  rise,  Phoenix-like,  from  its  ruins, 
and  this  hope  could  only  be  realized  by  the 
aid  of  philosophy.  But  since  the  great  mass 
was  unable  to  climb  to  her  misty  heights, 
Madame  Philosophy  saw  the  necessity  of 
coming  down  to  them.  But  where  was  the 
teacher  who  understood  how  to  make  this 
divine  spark  the  common  possession  of  all? 
Thousands  wasted  time  and  labor,  but  not 
one  succeeded.  Christianity  has  accom- 
plished it.  On  the  part  of  the  heathens 
every  possible  instrument  was  set 
in  motion  to  mould  out  of  the  various 
philosophical  systems  a  popular  religion,  but 
there  was  none  more  suitable  for  that  pur- 
pose than  the  Platonic-system.  Here  they 
found  a  great,  an  all-embracing  deity,  which 
could  be  easily  divided  into  three  powers, 
each  of  these  again  could,  without  any  diffi- 
culty, be  transformed  into  a  god,  and  thus 
both  the  thinking  and  unenlightened  classes 
were  highly  gratified.  The  former  saw  in  this 


classification  but  one  God,  whose  universal 
power  they  subdivided,in  order  to  get  a  clear 
comprehension  of  his  infinite  greatness;  the 
latter  shaped  it  into  a  trinity  to  suit  their  for- 
mer worship,  polytheism.  These  still  saw 
three  divinities,  for  they  abhorred  the  idea 
of  one  God.  One  God,  thought  they,  is  as 
good  as  none;  (unua  den  nullus  eat.}  Such 
results  were  all  they  expected.  This  fully 
assured  them,  that  philosophy  alone  could 
release  them  from  the  bonds  of  superstition 
and  despondency,  that  only  this  would  suc- 
ceed in  forcing  into  the  background  the  wide- 
spreading  nihilism,  and  thus  inspire  the  old 
now  discredited  myths,  with  new  hopes  and 
rejuvenated  vigor. 

PHILOSOPHICAL   DILETTANTEISM. 

A  new  life  began  to  unfold  itself  now. 
There  was  a  running  and  a  racing  from  one 
philosophical  sect  to  another.  Everywhere 
an  unquenchable  thirst  manifested  itself, 
not  for  knowledge,  but  revelation.  On  ac- 
count of  this  change,  shallow  and  greedy 
sophists s welled  with  pride,  and  caused  their 
pupils  to  follow  them  obsequiously.  But  the 
pupils  at  length  grew  tired  of  their  overbear- 
ing masters;  they  forsook  them  and  sought 
refuge  with  some  other  benighted  sect.  The 
heathen  philosophers,  who  had  gradually 
climbed  to  the  highest  point  of  knowledge, 
alone  found  peace  and  comfort  in  their  earn- 
est studies.  Philosophy,  they  thought,  was 
that  branch  of  science,  which,  alone  could 
make  them  happy  and  blessed.  Not  so  con- 
tented was  the  great  mass  of  hot-headed  dis- 
ciples, who  were  forever  changing  their 
schools  as  well  as  their  philosophical  sys- 
tems. They  wished  to  obtain  the  much  de- 
sired result  with  the  greatest  possible  speed, 
and  wherever  an  obstacle  hindered  their 
progress,  they  looked  for  an  experienced 
guide  to  help  them  across.  These  were  men 
with  restless  heads,  flaming  hearts  and  an 
enthusiastic  phantasies.  They  were,  there- 
fore, corrupted  philosophers,  being  discom- 
posed by  the  numerous  systems,  they  re- 
mained superficial  thinkers. 

HILLEL   AND  THE   HEATHEN. 

The  slow  progress  they  made  in  the  rug- 
ged path  that  leads  to  knowledge  discour- 
aged them.  They  yearned  for  revelation  and 
as  they  found  it  not,  they  wandered  from 
school  to  school  until  they  sank,  exhausted 
and  weary  at  the  door  of  Plato  to  regain 
their  former  strength  through  his  doctrines. 
Thence  to  Christianity  was  but  a  short  leap. 
Very  characteristic  of  this  period,  is  the 
story  narrated  in  the  Talmud,  of  the  heath- 
en who  requested  of  Hillel  to  be  taught  the 
Jewish  religion,  while  he  could  stand  on  one 


8  — 


leg.  This  is  no  exaggeration,  it  simply  illus- 
trates how  eagerly  they  longed  for  revela- 
tion, and  what  steps  they  took  to  procure  it. 
Even  the  mysteries  of  other  sects  were  re- 
sorted to,  since  their  own  could  no  more 
pacify  their  yearnings.  The  answer  which 
our  teacher  gave  to  this  absurd  question  is 
highly  important.  It  shows  us  how  well  he 
understood  those  people.  He  knew  that 
their  passionate  enthusiasm  would  entirely 
evaporate  before  they  had  accomplished  the 
first  half  of  their  journey.  They  were  as- 
piring to  the  grand  result,  but  dreaded  to 
perform  the  necessary  work.  He  could  not 
dismiss  him  without  a  word  of  comfort.  He 
therefore  gave  him  what  he  wanted,  and 
what  he  conscientiously  thought  to  be  the 
essence  of  Jewish  religion,  namely,  "Love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  "every  thing  else," 
said  he,  "is  commentary  to  this  verse.* 

THE  AUTHOR  OP  '(THE  RECOGNITION"    AND  JUS- 
TIN  MARTYR  DESCRIBE   THEIR   ADOPTION 
OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

These  proselytes  from  the  various  Phari- 
saic philosophical  schools  were  the  actual 
builders  of  the  church.  This  is  by  no  means 
our  individual  view  alone.  Let  us  but  read 
the  confessions  of  the  first  fathers  of  the 
church,  and  all  that  we  have  said  so  far  will 
be  fully  corroborated. 

The  author  of  the  Recognition,  whose 
name  is  Clemens  Romanus,  writes:  "For 
a  thought  within  me,  whence  originating  I 
can  not  tell,  led  me  to  constantly  ponder  on 
my  mortal  condition  and  to  discuss  such 
questions  as  these:  Whether  there  be  any 
life  for  me  after  death,  or  whether  I  am  to 
be  wholly  annihilated;  whether  I  did  not 
exist  before  I  was  born,  and  whether  there 
shall  be  no  remembrance  of  this  life  after 
death,  and  so  the  boundlessness  of  time 
shall  consign  all  things  to  oblivion  and 
silence,  so  that  we  shall  not  only  cease  to  be, 
but  there  shall  be  no  remembrance  that  we 
have  ever  been.  This  also  I  revolved  in  my 
mind,  when  the  world  was  made,  or  what 
was  before  it,  or  whether  it  has  existed 
during  all  time.  .  .  .  While  I  was  con- 
tinually revolving  in  my  mind  these  and 
such  like  questions,  I  was  pining  away  won- 
derfully through  excess  of  grief.  .  .  . 
Having,  therefore,  such  a  bent  of  mind 


Sabbat  31  a  * 


nina  mmn 


a  rrnnn 

a  &n  vsb  to    .vrae>  pan 
ton  ir  Tayn  N!>  -pan^ 
wn 


from  my  earliest  years,  the  desire  to  learn 
led  me  to  frequent  the  schools  of  the  philos- 
ophers. There  I  saw  that  nought  else  was 
done  save  that  doctrines  were  asserted  and 
controverted  without  end,  contests  were 
waged,  and  the  arts  of  syllogisms  and  the 
subtleties  of  conclusions  were  discussed. 
.  .  .  And  I  was  all  the  more  tortured 
in  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  because  I  was 
neither  able  to  lay  hold  of  any  of  those 
things  which  were  spoken  of  as  firmly 
established,  nor  was  I  able  to  lay  aside  the 
desire  of  inquiry.  .  .  .  What,  then, 
shaU  I  do?  This  I  shall  do:  I  shall  proceed 
to  Egypt  and  there  cultivate  the  friendship 
of  the  hierophants  or  prophets.  . 
Not  to  make  a  long  story  of  it,  whilst  I  was 
tossed  upon  these  billows  of  my  thought  a 
certain  report,  which  took  its  rise  in  the 
regions  of  the  East  in  the  reign  of  Ti- 
berius Csesar,  gradually  reached  us.  ... 
For  it  was  spread  over  all  places,  announc- 
ing that  there  was  a  certain  person  in  Judea 
who  was  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God  to 
the  Jews,  and  saying  that  those  should  re- 
ceive it  who  should  observe  the  ordinances 
of  His  commandments  and  His  doctrine. 
And  that  his  speech  might  be  believed  to 
be  worthy  of  credit  and  full  of  divinity,  he 
was  said  to  perform  many  mighty  works  and 
wonderful  signs  and  prodigies  by  his  mere 
word;  so  that,  as  one  having  power  from 
God,  he  made  the  deaf  hear,  and  the 
blind  see,  and  the  lame  stand  erect, 
and  expelled  every  infirmity  and  all  demons 
from  men;  yea,  that  he  even  raised  dead 
persons  who  were  brought  to  him,  and  that 
there  seemed  to  be  absolutely  nothing  which 
was  impossible  to  him.  .  .  .  About  the 
same  year  a  certain  man,  standing  in  a  most 
crowded  place  in  the  city,  made  a  proclama- 
tion to  the  people,  saying:  "Hear  me,  0 
ye  citizens  of  Rome.  The  Son  of  God  is 
now  in  the  land  of  Judea,  promising  eternal 
life  to  those  who  will  hear  him,  but  upon 
condition  that  they  shall  regulate  their  ac- 
tions according  to  the  will  of  him  by  whom 
he  hath  been  sent,  even  of  God,  the  Father. 
Whrefore  turn  ye  from  evil  things  to  good, 
from  things  temporal  to  things  eternal.  .  .  . 
Now  the  man  who  spoke  these  things  to  the 
people  was  from  the  regions  of  the  East,  by 
nation  a  Hebrew,  by  name  Barnabas.  .  .  . 
Learning  of  these  things,  I  began,  with  the 
rest  of  the  multitude,  to  follow  him  and  to 
hear  what  he  had  to  say.  Truly  7  perceived 
that  there  was  nothing  of  dialectic  artifice  in  the 
man,  and  that  he  related  without  craft  of  speech 
such  things  as  he  had  heard  from  the  Sim  of 
God  or  had  seen."^f 


t  Recog.  Lib.  i.,  c.  3:  Igitur  cum  a  prima  aetate  in 
hujus  einodi  auimoruin  intentione  versarer,  cupiens 


—  9  — 


This  confession  clearly  shows  how  easily 
these  shifting  philosophers  were  satisfied, 
how  little  their  head,  and  how  munh  their 
heart  wanted,  and  how  correctly  Hillel  had 
criticized  their  abilities.  Let  us  now  look 
over  the  account  which  Justin  Martyr  gives 
to  Tryphon  of  his  adoption  of  Cnrissiaaity. 
"  Philosophy  is,  in  fact,  the  greatest  posses- 
sion, and  most  honorable  before  God,  to  | 
whom  it  leads  us  and  alone  commends  us; 
and  those  are  truly  holy  men  who  have  be- 
stowed attention  on  philosophy.  What 
philosophy  is,  however,  and  why  it  has  been 
sent  down  to  man,  have  escaped  the  obser- 
vation of  most,  for  there  would  be  neither 
Platonists  nor  Stoics,  nor  Peripatetics,  nor 
Theoretics, '  nor  Pythagoreans,  this  know! 
edge  being  one.  I  wish  to  tell  you  why  it 
has  become  many- headed.  Those  who  first 
cultivated  it  (i.  e.  philosophy),  and  who 
were  therefore  esteemed  illustrious  men, 
were  succeeded  by  those  who  made  no  in- 
vestigations concerning  truth.  These  latter 
only  admired  the  perseverance  and  self-dis- 
cipline of  the  power  as  well  as  the  novelty 
of  the  doctrines.  Each  thought  that  to  be 
true  which  he  learned  from  his  teacher; 
then,  moreover,  these  disciples  handed  down 
to  their  successors  their  derived  ideas,  and 
others  similar  to  them;  and  this  system 
took  its  name  from  the  originator  of  the  doc- 
trine. Being  at  first  desirous  of  personally 
conversing  with  one  of  these  men,  I  sur- 
rendered myself  to  a  certain  Stoic.  Having 
spent  considerable  time  with  him,  without 
acquiring  any  further  knowledge  of  God, 
(for  he,  himself,  did  not  know,  and  deemed 
such  instruction  unnecessary),  I  left  him 
and  betook  myself  to  another.  This  man 
was  called  a  Peripatetic,  and  fancied  him- 
self shrewd.  And  having  entertained  me  a 
few  days,  he  requested  me  to  settle  the  fee 
in  order  that  our  intercourse  might  not  be 
unprofitable.  Him,  too,  for  this  reason  I 
abandoned,  believing  him  to  be  no  philoso- 
pher at  all.  But  since  my  soul  was  eagerly 
desirous  to  hear  the  peculiar  and  choice 
philosophy,  I  went  to  a  Pythagorean,  very 
celebrated — a  man  who  thought  much  of  his 
own  wisdom.  And  when  I  had  expressed 
my  willingness  to  become  his  hearer  and 
disciple,  he  said,  "  Well,  are  you  skilled  in 


aliquid  discere,  philosophorum  frequentabam 
scbulas,  ubi  uibil  aliud  quam  dogmatum  adsertionea 
et  iinpugnationes  videbain  agi  sine  flue  cer lamina 
aries  syUugismorum  conclusionumque  agitari  versu- 
tias,  etc. 

Ibid.  c.  4.  5  sqq. 

Ibid,  c,  7.  Quiousego  audltts,  cum  reliqua  multi- 
tuiiine  sequi  eum  coepi  et  audire,  q  ao  dicerei.  Iu 
teiligebaoi  sane  quod  nihil  diale  ticae  arils  asset  in 
homme,  sed  simuliciter  et  absque  ullo  dicendi  f  uco. 
quae  audisset  a  fllio  del  vel  viaisset,  expoiieret. 


music,  astronomy  and  geometry  ?  Do  you 
expect  to  be  able  to  perceive  any  of  those 
things  which  conduce  to  a  happy  life,  if  you 
have  not  been  first  informed  on  those 
points,  which  wean  the  soul  from  sensible 
objects,  and  render  it  fitted  for  objects  which 
appertain  to  the  mind,  so  that  it  can  contem- 
plate that  which  is  honorable  in  its  essence 
and  that  which  is  good  in  its  essence? 
Having  commended  these  branches  of  learn- 
ing, and  explained  their  necessity,  he  dis- 
missed me  when  I  confessed  my  ignorance. 
Accordingly  I  bjre  it  rather  impatiently,  as 
was  to  be  expected,  that  I  had  failed  in  my 
hope,  the  more  so  because  I  deemed  the 
man  had  some  knowledge;  but  reflecting 
again  on  the  space  of  time  during  which  I  would 
have  to  linger  over  those  studies,  I  was  not  able  to 
endure  longer  procrastination.  (Dial.  c.  Tr.  c. 
2.  (ed.  Otto.)  In  my  helples*  condition  it  oc- 
curred to  me  to  have  a  meeting  with  the  Platon- 
ists, for  their  fame  was  great.  I,  ttiereupon, 
spent  as  muck  of  my  time  as  possible  with  me 
who  had  lately  settled  in  our  city, — a  sagacious 
man.  holding  a  high  position  among  them — and 
1  progressed,  and  made  the  greatest  improvement 
daily.  And  (he  perception  of  immaterial  things 
quite  overpowered  me,  and  the  contemplation  of 
ideas  furnish*  d  my  mind  with  wings  so  that  in 
a  little  while  1  supposed  that  I  had  become  wise; 
and  such  was  my  stupidity  I  expected  forth- 
with to  look  upon,  God,  for  this  is  the  end  of 
Plato's  philosophy.  (Dial.  c.  Tr.  c.  2.  (ed. 
Otto.)  And  while  I  was  in  this  state  of 
mind,  wishing  once  to  be  alone  with  my 
thoughts,  I  went  into  a  certain  field  not  far 
from  the  sea.  And  when  I  was  near  the 
spot,  a  certain  old  man,  by  no  means  con- 
temptible in  appearance,  ot  meek  yet  vener- 
able mien,  followed  me  at  a  little  distance." 
This  old  man  straightway  kindled  a  de- 
sire in  his  soul  for  Jewish  philosophy.  By 
this  he  easily  procured  a  passage  for  Justin 
which  led  from  the  Plato  to  the  Prophets. 
After  some  debating  pro  and  con,  the  object 
of  which  was  to  lead  Justin's  vain  efforts  ad 
absurdum,  he  presently  be^an  to  plead  with 
all  his  oratorical  skill  in  behalf  of  the  Jew- 
ish prophets.  For  at  the  close  of  his  con- 
verting speech,  he  says:  "There  existed, 
long  before  this  time,  certain  men  more 
ancient  than  all  those  who  are  esteemed 
philosophers,  righteous  and  beloved  by  God, 
who  spoke  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  and  fore- 
told events  which  would  take  place,  and 
which  are  now  taking  place.  They  are 
called  prophets.  These  alone  both  saw  and 
announced  the  truth,  neither  reverencing 
nor  fearing  any  man,  not  influenced  by  a 
desire  for  glory,  but  speaking  those  things 
alone  which  they  saw  and  heard,  being 
filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Their  writings 


—10- 


are  still  extant,  and  he  who  has  read  them  is 
much  helped  in  his  knowledge  of  the  beginning 
and  end  of  things  and  of  thote  matters  which  the 
philosopher  ought  to  know,  provided  he  has  be- 
lieved them.  For  they  did  not  use  demons 
tration  in  their  treatises,  seeing  that  they 
were  witnesses  to  the  truth  ahove  all  de- 
monstration, and  worthy  of  belief;  (Dial.  c. 
7.)  and  those  events  which  have  happened, 
and  those  which  are  happening,  compel  you 
to  assent  to  the  utterances  made  by  them, 
although,  indeed,  they  were  entitled  to 
credit  on  account  of  the  miracles  which 
they  performed  since  they  both  glorified  the 
Creator,  the  God  and  Father  of  all  things, 
and  proclaimed  His  Son,  Christ."  etc. 

Such  words  easily  persuaded  this  lone- 
brooding  Platonist.  Unexpectedly  he  found 
the  man  who  pointed  out  a  bright  future  for 
him  and  the  road  that  leads  to  it.  With 
great  eagerness  and  zeal  he  threw  himself 
into  this  new  ocean  of  thought  in  which  a 
new  world  arose  before  his  eyes.  He  him- 
self describes  in  the  following  manner  the 
impression  the  old  man's  words  left  upon 
him.  "  But  straightway  a  flame  was  kindled 
in  my  soul ;  and  a  love  of  the  Prophets,  and 
of  those  men  who  are  friends  of  Christ,  pos- 
sessed me;  and  whilst  revolving  his  words 
in  my  mind,  I  found  this  philosophy  alone 
to  be  safe  and  profitable.  Tnus,  and  for 
this  reason,  I  am  a  philosopher." 

MOSES  AND  PLATO,  FAVORITES  OP  SENTIMENTAL 
PHILOSOPHERS. 

Justin  could  not  possibly  have  spoken 
clearer.  He  could  not  have  afforded  us  a 
better  insight  into  all  his  thoughts  and  into 
the  manner  of  his  conversion.  He  shows 
us  how  he  entered  with  trembling  impa- 
tience the  vestibules  of  the  various  schools 
without,  however,  advancing  further,  be- 
cause the  one  was. too  superficial  in  its  teach- 
ings, the  other  too  greedy  after  gain,  the 
third  demanded  from  the  applying  pupil,  a 
too  thorough  preparation,  which,  of  courpe, 
he  did  not  have  at  all,  and  to  acquire  it,  he 
lacked  entirely  the  necessary  zeal  and  pa- 
tience. Finally  he  is  accepted  by  the  Plato.- 
nists;  there  the  yearning  after  knowledge 
is  appeased.  Sporting  on  triis  wave  of  flat- 
tered hopes  and  pleasant  dreams,  he  was 
gradually  undulated  to  the  broad  sea  of 
"  Jewish  Philosophy."  Thus  the  fathers  of 
the  church  substantiate  on  all  sides,  that 
Moses  and  Plato  coincide  throughout,  and 
are  not  as  foreign  to  each  other,  as  appears 
at  the  first  glance. 

The  expression,  "Jewish  Philosophy." 
which  we  have  quite  frequently  used,  is  by 
no  means  an  arbitrary  adaptation  of  our 
own.  The  Jewish  literature  before  and  after 


the  Christian  period  was  to  the  Heathen,  as 
soon  as  it  ceased  to  be  looked  upon  as  a 
terra  incognita,  the  substance  of  all  that, 
which  was  termed  "Philosophy"  The 
Alexandrian  Schools  are  entitled  to  the 
credit  of  having  made  this  most  happy  dis- 
covery. Since  the  time  when  Aristobul 
labored  to  show  how  Plato  hail  extracted 
his  philosophy  with  the  most  unscrupulous 
discretion  from  Jew'sh  literature,  how  much 
of  the  Phythagorean  s.stem  was  drawn 
from  these  sources,  how  many  songs  and 
flowers  of  rhetoric,  even  Orpheus  had 
plucked  from  the  garden  of  "  Jewish  prose 
and  poesy."  Since  then  there  was  no  end 
of  comparisons.  This  was  carried  to  such 
an  extent,  that  the  further  they  advanced 
on  this  purely  imaginative  path,  the  less 
space  they  had,  until  their  foothold  at  length 
disappeared  entirely,  and  hypotheses,  flut- 
tering in  the  air,  were  accepted  as  incontest- 
able truths.  We  must  but  hear  Philo's 
views  on  this  topic.  He  is  so  much  over- 
come by  this  mania  that  he  makes  every 
philosopher  of  Greece  a  pupil  of  Moses, 
"  whose  doctrines  are  highly  esteemed,  not 
only  by  Jews,  but— which  is  the  more  amaz- 
ing— also  by  those  whose  reputation  for 
wisdom  is  of  great  renown."* 

And  after  some  remarks  concerning  the 
contempt  in  which  the  Greeks  and  Barbari- 
ans h;ld.  other  religions,  and  even  their 
own,  he  continues.  ''But  not  so  with  our 
law,  this  has  secured  for  itself  the  devotional 
adherence  of  Jew  and  Greek,  continent  and 
island,  the  orient  and  Occident,  Europe  and 
Asia,  in  short  the  whole  inhabited  world." 

This  view  did  not  remain  isolated.  Edu- 
cated heathenism  has  partly  accented  it,  and 
has  made  it  current.  We  soon  see  well 
known  biblical  personages  step  to  the  front 
and  become  pillars  of  the  highest  wisdom. 
Special  reverence  was  paid  to  the  Patriarchs. 
They  were  considered  men  who  had  sipped 
knowledge  from  the  purest  springs.  Of 
Abraham  it  was  affirmed  that  he  surpassed 
all  the  others  in  wisdom,  and  that  be  had 
invented  astrology.t 

The  names  ot .  these  patriarchs  became 
consequently  so  familiar  to  the  heathens, 
that  they  were  even  used  in  the  formulas  of 
the  magicians.  (Orig.  c.  Gels.  L.  iv.)  The 
emperor  Julian  himself,  who  considered  the 
prophets  wicked  and  unworthy  of  their 


'Compare   Dahne,  d.    jud.— alex.    Religious — 

Phil.  I.  S.  7«,  sqq. 

— fEupol.  ap.  Euseb.  Praen.  Ev.  Lib.  ix.  6. 

Even,  the  Talmud  knows  pomethinir  about  Abra- 
ham's occupation  witn  Astrology,  tinbb.  156  a.  And 
says  al  the  same  time,  that  Qua  had  dmsuaded  him 
irom  it.  Since,  such  a  ccieueo  has  uo  value  for  the 

Jewish  people. 


—11— 


great  God,  repeatedly  shows  the  highest 
respect  and  veneration  for  the  patriarchs. 
He  says:  '*  Although  I  am  not  one  of  those 
who  celebrates  the  Jewish  feasts,  I  neverthe- 
less worship  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob,  who  originate  from  the  sacred 
theosophic  race  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  who 
worship  the  God  that  is  great  and  mighty, 
and  who  is  gracious  to  those  who  like  Abra- 
ham revere  him."  And  in  another  place 
he  asserts  that  the  Heathens  worship  the 
same  God  as  the  Jews,  but  only  under  dif- 
ferent names. 

Thus  we  see  bow  the  Heathens  sought  ap- 
proaches everywhere,  how  they  made  com- 
parisons wherever  «n  opportunity  presented 
itself.  The  sole  object  of  all  this  was  to 
form  a  union  between  Heathenism  and  Ju- 
daism, and  this  was  entirely  accomplished 
as  soon  as  the  Jewish  religion  was  elevated 
to  the  dignity  of  Philosophy.  Fornow  could 
the  heathen  also  run  as  easily  from  a  philosophi 
cal  system,  that  did  not  please  him,  to  Jeuish  phi- 
losophy, as  he  formerly  wandered  without  scruple 
or  difficulty  from  one  sect  to  another.  All  that 
it  required,  was  to  regard  this  new  philoeo 
phy  in  the  light  of  their  old  one,  interpret 
it  as  they  previously  did,  and  Christianity 
was  a  completed  actuality.  Yet  of  all  an- 
cient philosophers,  Plato  is  the  only  one  who 
afforded  the  easiest  and  surest  passage  to 
Moses.  Both  not  only  spoke  a  very  winning 
phantasy- exciting  language,  but  the  sub- 
stance of  their  teachings  ie  suited  to  human 
necessity,  it  engaged  the  heart  more  than 
the  head,  it  dips  the  abstract  ideas  too  diffi 
cult  for  the  understanding  into  the  warm 
blood  of  the  heart,  and  makes  them  tangi- 
ble as  well  as  visible,  gives  them  form  as 
well  aa  color. 

SBie  etnft  tnit  gltifyenbem  SSerlangen 
?|}f;gmalton  ben  <3tein  utnfdjlofj, 
2M3  in  beg  2Haraor'§  falte  SBangen 
©mpfinbung  gliifyenb  fid)  ergofj." 
So  both  embraced  with  lover's  arms  the 
marble  cold  ideas,  until  they  began  to  glow 
and  re-animate  in  the  bosom  of  these  bards. 
Those  ever  agitated  questions  concerning 
the  creation  of  the  world  how  coldly  have 
they  been  treated,  how  inconsolingly  have 
they  been  solved  by  these  greatest  philoso- 
phers of  antiquity!  These  knew  no  pity,  no 
sympathy  for  mankind.  In  cold,  over- 
whelming words  they  unveiled  their  bare 
truths.  According  to  them,  the  world  has  ex- 
isted from  eternity,  man  is  a  mere  product 
of  nature.a  little  better  organized  but  not  en- 
titled to  special  claims.  What  a  painful  con- 
sciousness for  a  heart  agitated  by  a  burning 
mania  for  miracles!  This  was  despair  in- 
stead of  solace.  In  this  icy  world  Moses 
and  Plato  seemed  like  a  well  warmed  room  in 


the  winter,  which,  though  but  dimly  lighted 
by  a  little  lamp,  Rtill  gives  comfort  to  its 
pious  inmates,  who  severed  all  intercourse 
with  their  fellowmen,  and  who  in  this  half- 
darkness,  feel  much  more  comfortable  than 
those  outside  under  the  bright,  but  cold 
winter  sun.  This  comfortably  furnished 
and  heated  cell  affords  peace  from  the  rest- 
less, unsatisfactory  racing  along  the  various 
regions  of  science.  Deceived  in  their  wild 
anticipations,  they  now  feel  inclined  to  con- 
fine their  vessel  to  the  still  and  quiet  waters 
of  their  faith. 

Plato  and  Moses!  These  were  men,  who, 
inflamed  with  the  wish  of  elevating  man- 
kind, based  all  their  efforts  upon  the  ardent 
zeal  in  making  them  happy.  They  enter- 
tained, therefore,  their  own  views  about 
the  creation  of  the  world,  by  which  the 
How?  and  the  Where?  can  be  readily  seen. 
They  did  not  teach  like  Thales,  that  the 
world  was  created  Irom  waUr;  not  like  An- 
aximenes,  that  the  universe  was  produced 
from  air;  not  like  Heraclitus,  that  nature  was 
caused  by  fire  ;  not  like  Epicurus  and  Dem- 
ocritus,  that  the  earth  was  developed  from 
atoms  ;  not  like  Empedocles,  that  the  globe 
was  generated  from  the  four  elements  ;  their 
theory  is  not  gray,  it  is  the  golden  tree  of 
life, on  which  hang  the  choicest  fruits  and  to 
enjoy  them,  we  have  but  to  pluck  them. 
They  taught  that  by  emanation,  the  great 
Deity  itself  sent  forth  a  second  principle, 
which  he  placed  as  a  medium  between  Him- 
self and  the  world  which  was  to  be  created, 
in  order  to  create  everything  by  this  means; 
"on  account  of  which,  the  Jews  named  this 
principle,  ''The  word"  Logos,  or  Wisdom 
&>r>7iia,often  "Divine  Power"  Theou  dunamis 
— [Praep.  Ev.  L.  vii,  12].  This,  the  fathers 
of  the  church  claimed,  is  very  manifest 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  frequent  "God 
said"  demonstrates  clearly  that  the  ''Word" 
of  God  created  all  things.  (Praep.  Ev.  L. 
vii,  12.)  While  these  heathenish  half-phil- 
osophers Platonize  thus  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, they  are  already  in  the  midst  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  propelled  by  the  force  of  this 
newly  discovered  truth,  they  instantly 
sought  to  convert  the  remaining  blind  world 
to  their  faith,  a  task,  which  as  a  whole  was 
not  difficult  to  perform.  For  as  the  great  mass 
of  the  uncultivated  Heathens  reverenced 
Jesus  on  this  account,  because  he  seemed  to 
them  more  powerful  than  any  one  cf  their 
gods,  so  also  the  philosopbists  raised  the 
Jewish  religion  to  the  very  skies,  because 
they  expected  to  find  therein  the  best  phil- 
osophical system. 

It  has  already  been  mentioned,  that  at 
the  time,  when  Jesus  made  his  first  appear- 
ance, the  Heathens  anticipated  from  philos- 


—12— 


ophy  a  positive  as  well  as  a  benefiting  re- 
ligion. But  those  Heathens  who  could  boast 
of  a  mind  of  their  own,  and  who  had  re- 
ceived a  thorough  education,  could  not  be 
induced  to  take  part  in  erecting  an  edifice, 
placed  on  a  religious  philosophical  basis, 
and  which  was  destined  to  suit  all  classes  of 
people.  This  opposition  was  quite  natural, 
for,  on  the  one  side,  they  felt  confident  that 
they  could  find  in  their  own  philosophy 
anything  that  any  other  religion,  even  the 
beet,  could  offer ;  on  the  other  hand,  their 
whole  being  revolted  at  the  profanation  of 
this  divine  wisdom.  They  would  never  per- 
mit, that  their  sublimest  treasure  should  be 
surrendered  to  the  mercy  of  a  frenzied  rab- 
ble, that  it  should  be  placed  before  the  most 
uncultivated  like  the  daily  food.  This  in 
duced  Celsus,  Porphyrius  and  Julian  to  op- 
pose Christianity  with  all  the  force  at  their 
command.  "Your  religion,"  says  Julian  to 
the  Christians,  suits  all  classes  of  society,  as 
much  the  merchant  as  the  toll-gatherer  or 
the  dancer,  whose  pursuits  differ  so  much, 
and  who  are  nevertheless  guided  by  the 
bame  religion."  These  men,  trained  in  the 
old  philosophical  school  could  never  dream 
of  creating  a  national  religion.  This  is  there- 
fore the  work  of  those  sentimental  philoso- 
phers who  judged  more  with  the  heart  than 
with  the  head,  who  sympathized  with  the 
necessities  and  miseries  of  the  people. 

They  /  were  philosophers  of  the  people, 
who  united  the  language  of  the  heart  with 
the  well-known  scientific  methods  of  the 
various  schools,  and  thus  formed  a  league, 
by  which  they  completely  defeated  the  most 
important  philosophers  of  the  Heathens. 
"  They  beat  us,"  says  the  same  Julian,'  "  as 
the  proverb  says,  with  our  own  weapons,  we 
permit  them  to  murder  us  with  our  own 
swords." 

PLATO    AND   THE   TRINITY. 

Let  us  now  continue  to  follow  our  leader 
to  the  very  keystone  of  Christianity  upon 
which  everything  depends— we  mean  the 
Trinity  which  rises  like  an  immense  beacon 
between  Judaism  and  Heathenism,  in  order 
to  invite  those  who  are  tossed  about  on  both 
sides  in  the  stormy  sea  to  take  part  with 
them  in  the  safe  harbor  of  their  faith. 

All  those  numberless  praises  lavished  on 
Plato,  the  boundless  reverence  paid  to  the 
Hebrews  and  Moses,  all  those  colossal  stones 
of  buildings  gathered  from  the  most  distant 
places  were  to  serve  but  one  purpose, 
namely:  to  form  unyielding  pillars  for  the 
Trinity-monument,  "  a  column  which  has  ex 
isted  fiom  eternity  and  which  has  outlived  ages  " 
We  shall  not  examine  whether  Orpheus 
has  actually  taught  the  Trinity  in  his  songs, 


whether  Pythagoras  in  his  philosophy — 
as  the  fathers  of  the  church  maintain— but 
so  much  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  Plato 
has  imparted  to  his  best  pupils,  in  a  most 
careful  and  sacred  manner,  the  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity.  The  manner  in  which  the 
church  applies  every  word  of  this  philoso- 
pher, turning  and  twisting  it  in  every  pos- 
sible way,  marks  the  violent  road  which 
they  pursued  from  the  earliest  times,  and 
on  which  no  obstacle  was  too  great  for  them. 
We  must  naturally  ask  ourselves:  How- 
came  this  heathen  philosopher  to  the  most  sublime 
of  all  revelations,  how  came  it  that  he  taught  a 
similar  Trinity  and  yet  differed  from  the  Chris- 
tians in  the  third  cardinal  point  f  But  in- 
stead of  receiving  a  plain  answer,  the  fathers 
of  the  church,  by  modifying  his  doctrine, 
give  it  a  very  popular  form  and  maintain 
just  the  contrary,  namely:  "And  if  any 
one  will  attentively  consider  the  gift 
that  descends  from  God  on  the  holy  men — 
which  gift  the  sacred  prophets  call  the 
Holy  Ghost — he  shall  find  that  this  was  an- 
nounced under  another  name  by  Plato  in 
the  dialogue  with  Meno.  For,  fearing  to 
name  the  gift  of  God,  'the  Holy  Ghost,'  lest 
he  should  seem,  by  following  the  teachings 
of  the  prophets,  to  be  an  enemy  of  the 
Greeks,  he  acknowledges,  indeed,  that  it 
comes  down  from  God,  yet  does  not  think 
fit  to  name  it  the  Holy  Ghost  but  'virtue,' 
(Aretay)  (Jsstin  Cohort,  ad  Graec.  c.  32). 

But  in  realty  what  has  Plato  taught  on 
this  subject?  Well,  in  general  but  very 
little,  but  more  than  sufficient  for  these 
phantastic,  hypothesis-seeking  philosophists.. 
His  pupils,  especially  the  latter  ones,  pre- 
cipitated themselves  with  a  violence  of  a 
soul  despairing  and  yearning  after  revelation 
upon  this  portion  of  the  Platonic  philoso- 
phy, expanded  it  as  much  as  possible,  ex- 
tended it  to  all  sides,  so  that  gradually  there 
appeared  a  very  pleasant,  plastic  tangible 
system.  And  as  the  Trojans,  in  former 
years,  entered  triumphantly  their  city,  re- 
joicing with  the  direful  gift  of  the  Danai, 
without  having  the  least  presentiment,  that 
from  this  Grecian  present  woful  sufferings 
would  ensue,  so  also  the  Platonic  Jews, 
mounting  the  three-headed  philosophical 
Pegasus,  galloped  with  it  into  Jewish  litera- 
ture, not  giving  a  moment's  thought  that  by 
this  seemingly  harmless  sport,  the  heart  of 
Judaism  must  be  rent  assunder.  There 
they  stood  now,  wedged  between  door  and 
jamb.  Larger  grew  the  rent,  more  injurious 
the  confusion,  wider  and  wider  expanded 
the  yawning  commissures  —  a  crash — to 
pieces  fell  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  through  the  crumbled 
waste  stalked  boastingly  Polytheism — re- 
duced to  three  Godheads.  Such  results  the 


—13— 


Aristobules  and  the  Philos  have  brought 
about  with  their  Plato. 

Before  answering  these  Jewish-Alexan- 
drian philosophers,  let  us  first  bear  what 
Plato  and  his  school  have  to  say.  Speaking 
of  the  world  as  a  creation  of  the  most  god- 
like Logos,  Plato,  (in  Epimenide)  says: 
(Hon.  Kosmvn  elaxe  Logos  Ho  Pantoivn  Thiota- 
tog,)  and  in  another  place  he  speaks  "of  a 
God  that  governs  past,  present,  and  future, 
the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  beginning,  as: 
(Hegemonos  Kai  Aitiou  Pater).  This  causes 
Eusebius  to  make  the  following  joyful  ex- 
clamation: "This  is  evident  that  Plato  rea- 
sons from  Jewish  standpoints,  otherwise, 
how  else  could  he  describe  that  other  God  as 
the  highest  of  all  things  and  as  the  Father  of 
the  superior  leader?  How  could  he  pos- 
sibly address  the  Father  of  the  Demiurgos 
with  the  title  Lord,  when  no  Grecian  author 
before  him  has  ever  done  the  same?" 
(Praep.  Ev.  xi.  16). 

A  letter  of  Plato  to  Dionysius,  written  in 
mysterious,  awe-inspiring  words,  affording 
thus  unlimited  space  for  diverse  interpre- 
tations, is  by  far  the  most  important  docu- 
ment on  this  all  absorbing  question.  He 
speaks  of  a  mighty  King  of  the  Universe 
(Pantown  Basileus)  for  whose  sake  all  things 
have  sprung  forth,  and  who  is  the  cause  of 
all  good  ( Aition  Hapantown  Kalon),  and  he 
mentions  moreover  a  second  and  a  third 
principle.  In  these  words  of  Plato,  the 
fathers  of  the  church  find  the  doctrine  of 
the  sacred  Trinity  repeated  in  the  manner 
in  which  Jewish  literature  had  taught  it, 
(Praep.  Ev.  Lib.  I.  xviii,  xix,  xx:  VII.  xii.) 
But  since  these  read  Plato  with  commentary 
prepaied  by  his  own  pupils,  w~  think  it  will 
not  be  unprofitable  to  make  a  short  review 
with  the  reflective  reader  of  the  writings  of 
the  latter,  and  thus  be  enabled  to  follow 
more  closely  the  course  which  this  doctrine 
had  taken  for  the  final  development  of 
Christianity. 

THE  NEO-PLATONISTS. 

Plato  has  taught — in  his  own  words  which 
have  just  now  been  quoted — his  Trinity  in 
a  hazy  outline.  Misty  as  it  was,  it  never- 
theless attained  great  favor  in  later  years, 
and  the  less  it  could  be  understood  the 
more  it  excited  the  minda  of  his  pupils. 
These  explained  those  mysterious  words, 
that  the  first  Almighty  God  and  cause  of  all 
good  has  produced  by  emanation  the  sec- 
ond, called  Nmis,  and  this  again  the  third, 
called  Psyche.  This  interpretation  gradually 
gained  its  ground;  They  soon  accustomed 
themselves  to  consider  these  qualities  which, 
though  but  spiritually  conceived  by  this 
great  teacher,  yet,  nevertheless  belonging  to 


one  and  the  same  deity,  as  three  God-heads 
differing  in  person,  being  fully  assured  at  the 
same  time  that  Plato  never  meant  anything 
else  by  this  mysterious  doctrine.  So  also 
Plotin  confesses  that  his  explanation  of 
these  mysterious  words  of  Plato  is  not  origi- 
nal, but  was  the  common  opinion  of  many 
before  him.  (Praep.  Ev.  18,  19,  20. 
yii.  12.)  The  Genesis  of  this  holy  Trinity 
is  very  evident  to  him.  Fire  transmits  its 
heat  to  surrounding  objects.  Snow  confines 
not  the  cold  to  itself  alone,  but  shares  it 
with  neighboring  things.  The  same  can  be 
applied  to  all  odors.  The  sun  s6uds  his 
rays  through  all  the  universe,  without  suf- 
fering the  least  loss  of  heat.  In  a  similar 
manner  —  so  he  philosophizes  —  we  must 
think  of  the  first  deity,  which,  by  emanation 
caused  the  second,  and  this  again  the  third. 
Numenius  treats  the  Trinity  more  plas- 
tically still.  Yet  he  does  not  seem  to  care 
much  about  the  third  god,  and  his  novercal 
style  of  speaking  of  it  attracts  the  attention 
of  even  the  fathers  of  the  church.  Not  one 
of  them  knew  what  to  do  with  him.  The 
Platonic  school  had  of  course  afforded  the 
easiest  ascent  from  earth  to  heaven,  from 
the  material  to  the  abstract  by  its  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  This  ladder  of  ascension, 
while  gradually  expanding  in  its  lofty  height, 
until  it  merges  in  a  potent,  self  contented 
deity,  a  purely  spiritual,  no  longer  conceiv- 
able Goo,  it  contracts  in  the  same  propor- 
tion beneath,  until  it  falls  to  the  ground 
with  the  substance  to  which  it  gave  life  and 
motion;  and  while  the  two  divine  beings 
are,  in  their  activity  in  continual  motion, 
the  God  above  enjoys  the  most  perfect  and 
undisturbed  peace  and  rest.  He  is  the  great 
King,  who  on  account  of  fear,  lest  he  might 
lose  some  of  his  dignity,  dare  not  depart 
from  his  sphere,  or  descend  from  his  aereal 
abode  to  come  in  contact  with  Hyle  be- 
neath. Therefore  He  has  His  servants  who 
represent  Him  everywhere.  He  is  the  sun, 
which  does  not  leave  its  orbit,  but  sends 
His  rays  to  every  part.  He  is  the  source 
from  which  emanates  the  Logos,  the  all-per- 
vading spirit  of  the  universe,  so  that  they 
bring  into  reality  His  thoughts  and  execute 
His  will.  "There  is  not  a  doubt,  whatever," 
says  Numenius,  "that  the  highest  God  keeps 
aloof  from  labor,  and  is  the  King  of  the 
world,  that  the  world-creating  God  in  his 
passing  through  the  heavens,  guides  and  ar- 
ranges all  things.  (Praep.  Ev.  18,  19,  20. 
vii.  12. 

THE  JEWISH   PLATONISTS. 

Just  as  the  Neo  Platonists  found  their 
God,  far  distant  from  Hyle,  who  was  every 
where  represented  by  his  Demiurgos,  in  the 
works  of  Plato,  so  the  fathers  of  the  church 


—14— 


found  their  Deity  and  his  assistants  in  the 
Old  Testament.  Let  us  see  how  Justin  ex- 
presses himself  to  a  Jew,  regarding  this 
question:  "You  must  not  imagine  that  the 
unbegotten  God  himself  came  down  or  went 
up  froin  any  place.  For  the  ineffable  Father 
and  Lord  of  all,  neither  comes  to  any  place, 
nor  walks,  nor  sleeps,  nor  rises  up,  but  re- 
mains in  His  own  place,  wherever  that  is, 
quick  to  behold  and  quick  to  hear,  having 
neither  eyes  nor  ears,  but  being  of  inde- 
scribable might ;  and  He  sees  all  things  and 
knows  all  things,  and  none  of  us  escapes 
His  observation  ;  and  He  is  not  moved  or 
confined  (Oute  Kinumenos)  to  a  spot  in  the 
whole  world,  for  he  existed  before  the 
world  was  made.  How  then,  could  He  talk 
with  any  one,  or  be  seen  by  any  one,  or  ap- 
pear on  the  smallest  portion  of  the  earth, 
when  the  people  of  Sinai  were  not  able  to 
look  even  on  the  glory  of  him  who  was  sent 

from  Him Neither  Abraham,  nor 

Isaac,  nor  Jacob,  nor  any  other  man  saw  the 
Father  and  ineffable  Lord  of  all,  and  also  of 
Christ,  but  [sawj  Him  who  was  according 
to  His  will  His  Son,  being  God,  and  the 

angel,  because  He  ministered  His  will 

Him  they  saw.     (Dial.  c.  Tr.  e.  127.) 

Numenius,  who  has  done  his  good  share 
in  the  erection  of  this  Trinity  edifice,  un- 
derstands the  relationship  between  the  high- 
eat  God,  and  His  ministering  Demiurges  to 
be  the  same  as  that  which  exists  between 
the  landowner  and  those  who  till  the  soil  for 
him.  The  first  God,  the  source  of  all  life 
communicates  this  to  the  Demiurgos,  who 
has  been  summoned  to  Hie  immediate  pres- 
ence. This  one  again  arranges  and  sifts  this 
emanated  life  of  God  and  transplants  it  on 
earth  among  men.  (Phuteuei  kai  dianemei 
kai  metaphuleuei  eis  hemas  hekastous.)  Nume- 
nius assigns  to  Demiurgos  a  situation  of  a 
mediator  between  Heaven  and  Earth,  God 
and  men.  He  is  the  messenger  of  the  gods 
whose  hea.'  extends  into  Heaven,  where  he 
receives  all  necessary  instructions  from  the 
first  God,  and  with  his  feet  he  touches  the 
earth,  to  which  he  gives  life.  He  is  the  pilot 
on  high  sea  who  steers  the  boat  with  the 
rudder,  yet  at  the  same  time  he  has  his  eye 
turned  to  the  sky  to  learn  from  its  appear- 
ance the  course  to  be  taken. 

This  is  the  manner  in  which  Numenius 
explains  this  emanation.  All  things  earthly 
when  given  away,  prove  two  facts,  loss  and 
gain.  While  the  receiver  gains,  the  giver 
looses.  Not  so  with  divine  things.  Here 
the  giver  looses  nothing,  while  the  receiver 
gains.  If  one  imparts  to  another  some  of 
his  learning  he  himself  looses  nothing  by 
the  operation,  but  the  other  gains.  Simi- 
lar is  the  case  with  light.  This  can  be  im- 


parted to  another  body  without  sustaining 
the  slightest  loss.  Just  so  has  the  second 
god  proceeded  from  the  first,  without  caus- 
ing him  any  loss  of  his  former  power. 
(Praep.  Ev.  18,  19,  20,  vii.  12.)  This  Ema- 
nation theory  of  the  Platonic  school  was 
universally  adopted  by  the  fathers  of  the 
church. 

Justin  Martyr  gives  the  following  ac- 
count of  the  production  of  the  Logos:  "  I 
shall  give  you  another  testimony,  my 
friends,  from  the  Scriptures  that  God  begot 
before  all  creatures  a  Beginning  [who  was] 
a  certain  rational  power  proceeding  from 
Himself  dunamin  Una  ex  Jieautau  logiken) 
who  is  called  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  now  the 
Glory  of  the  Lord,  now  the  Son,  now  Wis- 
dom, now  an  Angel,  now  God,  now  Lord  and 
Logos ;  and  on  another  occasion,  He  calls 
Himself  Captain ....  He  can  be  called  by  all 
names,  since  He  ministers  to  the  Father's 
will,  and  since  He  was  begotten  of  the 
Father  by  an  act  of  will.  It  is  the  same 
with  ourselves;  for  when  we  utter  some 
word  we  beget  the  word,  yet  not  by  abscis- 
sion, so  as  to  lessen  the  word  which  remains 
in  us,  when  we  emit  it.  So,  also  is  it  in  the 
case  of  a  fire,  which  is  not  lessened  when  it 
has  kindled  another,  but  remains  the  same; 
and  that  which  has  been  kindled  by  it,  like- 
wise appears  to  exist  by  itself,  not  diminish- 
ing that  from  which  it  was  kindled."  (Dial. 
c.  Tr.  c.  61.)  And  in  another  place  he  says, 
"This  power  was  begotten  from  the  Father, 
by  His  power  and  will,  but  not  by  abscis- 
sion, as  if  the  essence  of  the  Father  was  di- 
vided ;  as  all  other  things  partitioned  and 
divided  are  not  the  same  after  as  before 
they  were  divided.  For  the  sake  of  exam- 
ple, I  took  the  case  of  fires  kindled  from  a 
fire,  which  we  see  to  be  distinct  from  it,  and 
yet  that  from  which  many  can  be  kindled 
is  by  no  means  made  less,  but  remains  the 
same."  (Dial.  c.  Tr.  c.  128.) 

Thus  the  school  of  Plato  had  gradually 
succeeded  in  fully  establishing  a  doctrine 
of  a  Trinity.  One  thing  was  still  lacking 
to  make  it  a  complete  success  and  to  gain 
the  full  approval  of  the  lower  classes,  and 
that  was  the  "corporality"  of  these  deities, 
with  which  they  were  wont  to  recognize 
their  former  Gods.  But  how  came  this 
doctrine  into  Judaism?  For  the  fathers  of 
the  church  maintained  that  they  knew  it 
and  even  reverenced  it  as  the  highest  dogma. 
It  stands  to  reason  that  they  would  not  base 
their  new  faith  on  Heathenism,  especially 
since  they  thought  that  they  had  fully 
proven  Plato's  theft  from  Jewish  literature. 
The  first  fathers  of  the  church  discovered  a 
Trinity  doctrine  in  the  Platonic  school,  and 
to  give  the  new  church  a  solid  foundation, 


—15— 


this  discovery  had  to  be  used  as  its  substra- 
tum. But  they  also  understood  that  it  would 
be  a  cause  for  perpetual  accusations,  if  it 
once  became  known  that  the  strength  of  this 
new  buildiug  depends  on  heathenism.  They 
saw  the  necessity  of  making  the  ground- 
work from  much  older  and  more  worthy 
material.  Nothing  was  more  fitted  to  be 
the  beaier  of  this  theory  than  Jewish  litera- 
ture of  gray  antiquity,  the  source  of  Plato's 
thoughts  and  views.  This  would  be  quite 
a  gain  in  reputation  for  their  church  as  well 
as  for  Jewish  literature.  But  who  was  it, 
who  taught  that  Plato's  Logos  could  be 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  thus  kin- 
dled a  torch  for  the  founders  of  the  church, 
by  the  aid  of  which  a  whole  philosophical 
system  could  be  brought  td  light?  They 
were  Alexandrian  Jews,  who  for  a  long 
time  had  thirstily  imbibed  all  their  nourish- 
ment from  the  fountains  of  Grecian  philoso- 
phy, but  without  rejecting  Judaism,  to  which 
they  clung  with  the  fondest  love.  It  was 
the  most  difficult  thing  for  them  to  choose 
between  Moses  and  Plato.  They  had  to  de- 
clare themselves  for  both,  and  they  soon 
found — since,  they  absolutely  wanted  it — 
that  both  had  taught  the  same. 

This  foreign  philosophy  was  to  Judaism 
what  a  light  in  a  dark  night  is  to  the  com- 
fort of  a  blind  man.  Although,  notwith- 
standing, he  has  a  light  in  his  hand,  he  sees 
nothing,  yet  others  see  him,  and  this  con- 
sciousness procures  for  him  more  safety  and 
quiet.  So  also  the  Jewish  philosophers 
in  the  beginning  could  see  nothing  in  spite 
of  their  borrowed  light.  But  gradually  they 
deluded  themselves  into  the  belief  that  their 
Plato  was  akin  to  the  Old  Testament,  and 
though  they  saw  nothing  in  spite  of  their 
boasted  farsightedness,  yet  from  this  ex- 
periment there  arose  an  advantage  of  no 
small  importance  to  men  exterior  to  them, 
who  began  to  notice  and  to  observe  Ju- 
daism, transfigured  under  the  Platonic  light. 
Aristobul  already  had  made  every  possible 
effort  to  harmonize  the  doctrines  of  Grecian 
philosophers  with  those  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  moreover,  to  establish  that  the 
former  were  taken  from  the  latter.  So  he 
says  among  other  things  that  the  divine 
voice  is  not  an  ordinary  one,  serving  the 
winged  word  alone,  but  it  is  a  creator  of 
works,  and  in  the  same  sense  Moses  con- 
ceived this  divine  voice,  for  it  is  said:  "God 
said  and  it  was  done."  Pythagoras,  Socrates 
and  Plato  were  also  in  unison  as  regards 
this  view,  when  they  maintained  "to  hear 
the  divine  voice."  (Ap.  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev. 
L.  xiii.  12.) 

THE  LOGOS  OF  PLATO. 

Here  we  have  already  the  Logos  of  the 


Old  Testament  in  a  misty  outline.  In  the 
same  manner  we  meet  it  again  at  another 
occasion,  where  Aristobul  identifies  it  with 
the  Sophia  of  Solomon,  and,  in  his  argu- 
ments against  the  Peripatetics  maintains 
that  wisdom  had  sat  in  the  Council  of  God 
before  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  that 
Solomon  bad  explained  it  much  more  beauti- 
fully and  more  precisely  than  they.  (Ap. 
Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  L.  vii.  14.)  By  this 
identification  of  the  Sophia  with  the  Pla- 
tonic Logos,  Aristobul  showed  the  way  to 
the  Christian  Logos  sooner  than  any  one. 
Philo  on  the  other  hand  sought  to  transmit 
the  Platonic  imagination  to  Jewish  litera- 
ture in  a  more  systematic  manner.  These 
men  of  course  had  the  very  best  intentions 
at  heart,  but  were  so  involved  in  their  pre- 
conceived opinion,  that  they  sincerely  be- 
lieved to  follow  the  footsteps  of  sacred  truth, 
while  in  reality  they  indulged  the  sweet  al- 
lurements of  revelry.  With  eager  hand 
they  dug  after  treasures  and  shouted  joy- 
fully when  they  found  rain  worms.  Their 
greatest  aim,  to  prove  that  the  powerful  Pla- 
tonic God,  too  unconceivable  for  the  human 
mind,  far  removed  from  matter,  was  the 
God  of  the  Old  Testament,  caused  them  to 
overlook  the  greatest  blunders  which  they 
made.  Keeping  this  aim  in  view  and  ap- 
proaching it  step  by  step,  they  could  not 
notice  in  their  ardent  zeal,  that  the  ground 
beneath  them  became  more  and  more  un- 
stable. They  watched  with  the  greatest 
care  the  unapproachableness  of  their  great 
God,  would  not  even  for  a  moment  let  him 
come  in  contact  with  the  "desecrating  Hyle," 
gave  him  Logos  and  Logi  as  attendants,  so 
that  these  should,  as  divine  attributes,  exe- 
cute all  that  was  necessary.  Actions  like  these 
estranged  them  at  length  from  Judaism 
without  their  knowing  it,  without  their 
wishing  it.  For,  while  the  clear- minded 
Jew,  not  afflicted  with  this  manner  of  Pla- 
tonism,  looked  upon  his  God  as  the  Creator 
and  Maintainer  of  the  world,  the  philosophi- 
cal Alexandrian  Jew  tortured  himself  with 
his  Platonic  principles,  and  considered  it 
nothing  less  than  blasphemy  to  bring  the 
Highest  Being  in  connection  with  matter. 
The  unity  of  God  was  thus  destroyed  by 
him.  In  the  same  proportion  as  they  be- 
came estranged  to  Judaism,  they  approached 
Christianity.  A  passage  from  Philo  will 
illustrate  this  statement.  It  refers  to  a  word 
of  the  Bible,  and  it  will  on  the  one  side  af- 
ford us  a  clear  insight  into  the  way  of  think- 
ing of  a  traditional  Jew,  of  an  Alexandrian 
Jew,  and  finally  of  a  father  of  the  church, 
while  on  the  other  side  it  will  give  us  some 
information  of  the  sad  fate  of  some  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  metamor- 


—16— 


phoses  they  had  to  pass  through,  until  it 
could  finally  be  put  aside  as  perfectly  Chris- 
tian. This  following  Hagada  teaches  how 
great  a  difference  existed  between  the 
real  Jewish  way  of  thinking  and  the  Phi- 
Ionic  sentimentality.  When  Moses  imbued 
with  a  divine  inspiration  wrote  theThorah, 
and  when  he  came  to  the  passage:  "Let  us 
make  man  in  our  image,"  he  started  up 
with  terror  and  would  write  no  more. 
His  whole  being  resisted  such  an  expres- 
sion of  plurality,  and  he  began  to  accuse 
God,  who  dictated  these  words  to  him,  that 
His  divine  unity  would  sustain  heavy  blows 
since  men  would  conclude  from  these  words 
that  there  are  more  than  one  God.  "But 
the  Almighty"  —  so  it  continues  —  "was  not 
confounded  by  his  objection,  he  insisted 
upon  his  writing  down  the  fallacious  words, 
saying  to  our  lawgiver  that  he  cared  not  for 
those  who  wished  to  mistake:  Let  him 
blunder"  said  he,  "who  wants  to  blunder."* 

This  is  the  sound  and  unsophisticated 
Jewish  way  of  thinking.  They  pass  by  with- 
out paying  any  attention  to  the  resultless 
philosophical  investigations,  and  trouble 
themselves  not  the  least  about  those  who  are 
busily  engaged  in  those  researches.  "Let 
him  blunder,"  they  say,  "who  wants  to 
blunder." 

Entirely  different  is  Philo's  way  of  think- 
ing. He  also  is  surprised  when  he  reaches 
the  passages.  "Let  us  make  man,"  etc.  But  his 
surprise  is  not  like  that  which  the  legend 
attributes  to  Moses.  While  the  latter  is  in- 
consolable that  he  must  write  down  these 
fatal  words,  the  former  exults  in  finding 
them.  For  he  philosophizes  with  Plato  that 
God  is  too  sublime  to  come  in  contact 
with  the  material.  The  Highest  Being  was 
not  permitted  to  create  man.  Man  consists 
not  alone  of  the  divine  light  of  heaven,  the 
soul,  but  also  of  the  sinful  part,  the  body, 
and  how  was  it  possible,  that  God  could 
ever  be  the  cause  of  anything  bad.  This 
Moses  himself  teaches  when  he  says  that 
at  the  creation  God  spoke  :  "  Let  us  create 
man,"  which  denotes  that  God  required  the 
help  of  others,  so  that  if  man  does  what  is 
right  and  just  it  can  be  attributed  to  God,  if 
otherwise,  to  his  Co  laborers.? 


3TI13 


DVI  DV 


Genesis  Rabb.  8 

npyo  ania    rvn  minn 


no  oSyn  n^i  vjfii»  IDK  urmm 

b  ION    KiTDHK    D'Jt&   HD    JinnB   JHW 

r\\sKh  mmm 


tDe  muiid.  opif,  8.  15,  1C,  and  in  other  places.  Com- 
pare Dahne  a.  a.  O.  8.  322  eq. 


It  can  easily  be  imagined  what  use  the 
fathers  of  the  church  make  of  this  passage. 
Their  triumph  is  a  still  greater  one.  With 
joy  they  reach  their  hand  after  that  ignis 
fatuua  of  Philo,  and  find,  "that  the  first  cause 
had  a  consultation  with  the  second  cause  i.  e. 
God  and  His  Son,about  the  formation  of  man. 
For,  it  is  a  self-evident  fact  that  if  one 
speaks,  he  must  speak  to  some  one,  if  one 
command  somebody,  this  addressed,  com- 
manded person  must  be  a  body  distinct  from 
him  who  speaks  or  commands.* 

This  passage  gives  some  representation  of 
the  various  changes  of  a  Bible  passages  before 
it  could  make  its  last  appearance  as  a  corner 
stone  of  the  Christian  church. 

Notwithstanding  all  his  mistakes,  his 
views,  are  nevertheless  by  far  superior  to 
the  most  important  fathers  of  the  church. 
He  clings  with  all  his  might  to  Plato,  forces 
his  Logos  into  Jewish  literature,  but  it  re- 
mained here  as  purely  spiritual  as  there. 
The  Logos  of  Philo  is  no  more  than  a  mere 
contrivance  to  aid  him  in  his  explanation  of 
the  creation.  It  suffered  nothing  by  its  re- 
moval to  the  Old  Testament.  It  had  there 
the  same  significance  as  with  Plato,  the  cre- 
ating attribute  of  the  great  God.  But  the 
transplanting  in  itself  was  a  severe  assault 
on  Judaism,  For,  if  it  is  once  established 
that  Jewish  literature  teaches  the  Logos, 
there  is  then  no  stand-still  with  this  suppo- 
sition, but  the  whole  territory  of  Jewish  lit- 
erature is  levelled  for  its  final  purpose. 
Already  they  know  that  the  Old  Testament 
not  only  teaches  the  "Logos,"  the  "Sophia," 
etc.,  but  also  a  Messiah  endowed  with  flesh 
and  blood,  saved  for  the  redemption  of  the 
human  family.  How  now,  if  some  one 
should  have  thought  to  unite  this  spiritual 
Logos  with  the  corporeal  Messiah  in  such  a 
manner,  that  the  hit  ter,if  necessity  required 
it,  would  lend  to  the  former,  this  corporeal 
integument,  how  then?  Why  then  we  will 
already  have  a  corporeal  Logos,  bodily  be- 
fore us,  and  Judaism  will  have  built  its  own 
coffin  from  its  own  wood.  These  are  the  con- 
sequences of  the  philosophical  doctrine. 

And  now  the  time  has  arrived  to  form  a 
slight  acquaintance  with  the  Logos  of  Philo, 
to  become  fully  convinced  that  it  is  in  re- 
ality nothing  else  but  a  divine  attribute  and 
not  a  tangible  or  even  a  corporeal  deity. 

So  much  has  already  been  written  on 
the  Logos  of  Philo  and  its  influence 
upon  the  development  of  Christianity,  that 
it  would  be  of  no  necessity  on  our  part,  to 
say  a  word  about  it,  if  our  subject  which  it 
comes  in  slight  contact  with  it,  had  not  de- 
manded it.  By  carefully  studying  the  writ- 
ings of  this  Alexandrian  philosopher,  we 


•Praep.  Ev.  L.  vii.,  12. 


—17— 


discover  everywhere,  that  his  acceptance  of 
the  Logos  had  a  sincere  motive  beneath  it, 
namely,  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
must  never  be  brought  in  close  connection 
with  matter.  His  own  words  may  tell  us 
how  he  thinks  of  God.  "  But  God  is  not  a 
compound  being,  nor  one  which  is  made  up 
of  many  parts,  but  one  which  has  no  mix- 
ture with  anything  else;  for  whatever  could 
be  combined  with  God  must  be  either  supe- 
rior to  him,  or  inferior  to  him,  or  equal  to 
him.  But  there  is  nothing  equal  to  God, 
and  nothing  superior  to  him,  and  nothing 
is  combined  with  him  which  is  worse  than 
himself,  for  if  it  were,  he,  himself  would  be 
deteriorated;  and,  if  he  were  to  suffer  deter- 
ioration, he  would  also  become  perishable, 
which  it  is  impious  even  to  to  imagine."* 

With  such  a  view  of  the  Deity,  it  is  im- 
possible to  conceive  a  life  in  the  universe 
without  a  mediatorial  power,  which  should  ' 
act  as  the  intercessor  between  God  and  i 
man.  A  conception  of  the  Logos,  as  sub-  \ 
lime  as  this,  a  world  creating,  a  world-gov-  ! 
erning  attribute  of  God,  seems  to  him  no  | 
mere  offspring  of  an  idle  brain;  he  regards  i 
it  a  revelation  to  his  soul  from  God.  He 
describes  this  inspiration  in  the  following  j 
manner.  "I  have  also,  on  one  occasion, 
heard  a  more  ingenious  train  of  reasoning 
from  my  own  soul,  which  was  accustomed 
to  be  seized  with  a  certain  divine  inspira- 
tion, even  concerning  matters  it  could  not 
explain  even  to  itself;  which  now,  if  I  am 
able  to  remember  accurately,  I  will  relate. 
It  told  me  that  in  the  one  living  and  true  God 
there  were  two  supreme  and  primary  powers, 
goodness  and  power;  and  that  by  his  good 
ness  he  had  created  the  universe,  and  by 
his  power  he  governed  all  that  he  had  cre- 
ated; and  that  the  third  thing  which  was 
between  the  two,  and  had  the  effect  of 
bringing  them  together,  was  the  Logos  ;  for 
it  was  owing  to  the  Logos  that  God  was  both 
a  ruler  and  good.  Now  of  this  ruling  power 
and  of  this  goodness,  being  two  distinct 
powers,  Cherubim  were  the  symbols ;  but 
of  the  Logos  the  flaming  sword  was  the  sig- 
nal." These  words  need  no  commentary. 
"For  many  things  "--he  continues  in  his  phi- 
losophy-" must  co-operate  in  the  creationof 
anything;  by  whom?  From  what?  By  means 
of  what?  And  why?  Now  he,  with  whom  the 
thing  originates,  is  the  cause ;  that  from 
which  the  thing  is  made,  is  the  material ; 
that  by  means  of  which  it  was  made,  is  the 
instrument;  and  why,  is  the  object.  Sup 
pose  any  one  should  ask,  what  is  required 
to  build  my  house  or  city?  Must  there 
not  be  a  builder,  and  stones,  and  timber, 
and  tools?  What  then  is  the  builder,  but 

*Philo  Judaeus  Leg.  alleg.  II. 


the  cause  by  whom  the  house  or  citv  is 
built?  And  what  are  the  stones  and  timber, 
but  the  materials  of  which  the  building  is 
made?  And  what  are  the  tools,  but  the 
things  by  means  of  which  it  is  made?  And 
for  what"  reason  is  it  built,  except  to  serve 
as  a  shelter  and  protection?  This  is  the 
object.  Now  passing  on  from  these  particular 
buildings,  consider  the  greatest  house  or 
city,  namely,  this  world,  for  you  will  find 
that  God  is  the  cause  of  it,  by  whom  it  was 
made.  That  the  materials  are  the  four  ele- 
ments, of  which  it  is  composed ;  that  the 
instrument  is  the  "Word"  of  God,  by  raeans 
of  which  it  was  made ;  and  the  object  of 
the  building  you  will  find  to  be  the  display 
of  the  goodness  of  the  Creator." 

In  perfect  harmony  with  the  Platonic 
schools,  he  describes  the  influences  of  the 
highest  being  of  the  world  by  means  of 
permanent  emanation.  "God,  the  highest 
being  and  purest  light  can  not  be  seen  by 
mortals,  owing  to  its  stupendous  splendor. 
In  widely  expanded  spheres  about  Him, 
the  Logos,  with  god-like  splendor,  is  situ- 
ated. The  many  divine  powers  convey  the 
received  light  by  means  of  rays  to  the  re- 
motest regions,  until  the  whole  universe  is 
resplendent  with  the  primitive  light.t 

AUQUSTIN    ON    THE    PLATONIC   LOGOS   AND   ITS 
DIFFERENCE  FROM  THE  CHRI8TIA.N  LOGOS. 

And  now  we  are  supposed  to  have  dis- 
covered the  Logos,  the  suitable  convenience 
for  the  weak  human  family,  the  intercessor 
between  God  and  man,  not  only  in  the  Pla- 
tonic schools,  but  also  in  Judaism.  Not- 
withstanding this  unexpected  discovery, 
dates  (rom  almost  the  same  time  as  that  of 
the  birth  of  Christianity,  still,  no  one  as  yet 
has  dared  to  build  up  Christianity  from 
this  Logos.  All  the  preliminary  conditions 
were  contracted,  the  necessary  material  was 
at  hand,  the  souls  were  in  readiness  for 
that  decisive  change — and  not  yet  the  an- 
ticipated religious  catastrophy  takes  place — 
And  why  not?  The  holy  Augustin,  who  of 
course  should  know  it,  since  he  was  a  pupil 
of  the  Platonists  before  he  adopted  Chris- 
tianity, gives  us  an  intelligent  answer.  "I 
have  read,"  says  he,  "the  Platonic  works, 
and  they  have  offered  me  the  greatest  joy, 
when  I  discovered  in  a  thousand  places  that 
they  teach  the  belief  in  God  and  His  Logos. 
I  have  also  found  therein  that  the  'Word' 
has  existed  from  the  first  beginning,  that  it 
was  with  God,  that  it  was  God,  that  every- 
thing, that  is,  owes  its  existence  to  it.  I 
have  moreover,  read  in  these  works,  that 
the  Logos  did  not  depend  on  flesh,  blood, 


t  Phllo  Judaeus  de  Cher.    Compare  Daehne  a.  a. 
o.  8.  273  sq. 


-18— 


or  the  desires  of  flesh  for  its  existence,  but 
that  it  had  been  created  by  God  Himself, 
and  yet  I  have  never  read  there  that  the  'Word' 
has  become  Flesh  and  has  ivalked  among  us."  '* 
This  was  the  only  obstacle  that  prevented 
the  formation  of  the  new  doctrine.  The 
Platonic,  religious  philosophy  had  not  yet 
reached  that  degree  of  popularity,  by  which 
alone  it  could  go  over  with  an  overwhelm 
ing  mass  into  the  camp  of  the  flesh  and 
blood  doctrine.  The  Logos  was  still  too 
lofty,  still  too  spiritual  to  become  the  re- 
deemer of  such  restless  and  sentimental 
people,  as  we  have  described  them  above. 
It  is  true  that  everything  was  prepared  for 
the  reception  of  a  new  doctrine;  it  is  true 
that  Olympus,  with  his  stock  of  gods,  was 
left  in  the  lurch;  it  is  also  true  that  the 
people  wandered  about  with  discomfitted 
souls,  panting  after  revelation,  Not  less  is 
it  true  that  philosophy  accommodated  itself 
gradually  to  step  down  from  its  lofty  bight 
and  condense  into  a  national  religion;  all 
this  is  true,  but  it  did  not  satisfy  them  yet 
One  day  Jesus  made  his  appearance  in  the 
small  district  of  Judea.  From  what  circles 
he  arose  and  in  what  sphere  he  labored,  is 
known  to  all.  His  small  band  of  followers, 
yearning  for  redemption,  saw  in  him  that 
Messiah,  whom  Jewish  literature  had  fore- 
told. But  as  such  he  could  not  claim  recog- 
nition from  the  Heathens,  and  he  would 
surely  have  been  soon  forgotten,  had  not 
other  very  important  circumstances  worked 
in  his  iavor.  There  came  the  heathen-con- 
verting Paul,  and  behind  him,  at  the  expedi- 
ent moment,  appeared  the  right  man  in  the 
right  place,  and  spoke  the  right  word,  and 
his  world  caught  fire. 

JOHN,  THE   FIRST,  WHO    IDENTIFIED   THE    PLA- 
TONIC LOGOS  WITH  THE  MESSIAH 

It  was  the  Apostle  John  who  first  dis- 
covered this  world -redeeming  word,  and 
who  cast  it  to  thirsting  humanity.  He  was 
the  first  who  pronounced  that  the  Platonic 
Logos  and  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  one  and  the  same,  that  he  walked 
among  men,  had  cleansed  them  from  their 
gins,  that  the  dark  world  was  unable  to  see 
him.  And  when  he  bf-gan  with  his  infor 
mation  :  "In  the  beginning  was  the  '  Word' 
and  the  '  Word'  was  with  God,  and  the 
'  Word'  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the  be- 
ginning with  God.  All  things  were  made 
by  him  (Logos);  and  without  htm  was  noth- 
ing made  that  was  made.  In  him  was  life  ; 
and  the  light  was  the  light  of  men.  And 
the  light  shineth  in  darkness;  and  the  dark- 
ness comprehended  it  not.  .  .  .  And  the 

*  Compare  Basuage,  hist,  des  Juifs.  Liv.  iv.  c.  3. 


Word'  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,  the  glory  as  of 
the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth." 

When  this  knowledge  was  spread  abroad 
:>y  the  apostle,  a  lighting,  making  the  whole 
world  tremb  e,  suddenly  convulsed  the 
seople,  seized  upon  the  morbid  Olympus, 
jurned  the  Gods  of  Greece,  and  from  the 
smoking  ruins  there  arose  triumphantly  the 
listening  Platonic  Trinity,  having  been 
gilded  in  a  Jewish  crucible.  At  length 
suffering  humanity  was  resuscitated,  ailing 
aalf- philosophers  became  at  once  hale  and 
aeartj\  At  last,  after  years  of  ineffable 
sufferings,  painful  vagueness,  unutterable 
scruples,  they  have  found  what  they  have 
ardently  but  vainly  sought.  The  Logos  of 
Plato  was  no  more  unapproachable,  it  had 
descended  from  its  lofty  sphere,  dwelt  like 
a  man  among  men,  to  redeem  them,  taught, 
suffered  and  hastened  back  to  his  Father  in 
heaven,  after  he  bad  sacrified  himself  for 
the  everlasting  happiness  of  the  sinful, 
human  family.  This  was  a  tangible  philo- 
sophy, one  that  was  in  the  intellectual  reach 
of  ev-ry  class  of  society.  At  last  the  How? 
and  Why?  were  known. 

When  this  mighty  word  of  John  began  to 
spread,  and  to  be  understood  in  both  par- 
ties, and  to  seize  upon  the  mind  with  elec- 
tric force,  then  the  last  barriers,  which  had 
till  now  existed  between  Heathenism  and 
Judaism,  began  to  fall.  All  at  once  the 
scales  fell  from  off  the  eyes  of  these  seeking 
philosophers,  after  they  h?d  eagerly  drained 
the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  from  cups 
prepared  by  Philo,  and  after  they  brought 
proof  after  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  Apostle 
John.  In  the  height  of  their  ecstasy  those 
emigrating  from  Heathenism  rushed  upon 
the  Jewish  law,  plundered,  robbed,  till 
nothing  more  could  be  found,  and  strangest 
of  all — all  the  booty  they  had  gained  be- 
came under  their  fingers  a  Logos.  Like 
barbarians  they  act  now  in  the  "  Old  Cove- 
nant," quarrel  with  a  whimsical  stubbor- 
ness,  the  like  of  which  the  annals  of  history 
are  unable  to  show.  The  enthusiasm  of 
those  "  from  the  Heathens,"  finally  took 
such  dimension,  that  they,  who  could  not 
read  a  word  of  the  Old  Testament,  dared  to 
fling  into  the  teeth  of  the  Jewish  teachers, 
the  most  absurd  of  all  charges,  that  they 
understood  not  their  own  writings.  With 
the  most  unheard  of  audacity  young  pupils, 
who  had  hardly  reached  beyond  the  first 
degree  of  dilettanteism,  dared  to  upbraid 
old  sagacious  teachers.  What  proof  is  more 
evident  than  the  bold  naivete  of  the  enthu- 
siastic Justin  trying  to  explain  the  Bible  to 
the  Jews.  Of  course  they  laughed  at  his 


—19- 


childish,  zealous  fervency.  And  he  was 
not  the  only  one ;  many  a  father  of  the 
church  looked  upon  the  career  of  this  fiery 
Justin  and  followed  in  his  footsteps.  They 
claimed  that  the  Holy  Ghost  dictated  it  to 
them  as  well  as  it  had  formerly  enjoined  it 
upon  their  fore  runner.  If  the  making  of  a 
good  deal  of  noise  may  be  considered  sub- 
stantiated testimony,  then  these  soul-stir- 
ring followers  of  the  apostles  have  accom- 
plished incredible  things,  because  a  more 
deafening  verbosity,  a  more  bombastic  re- 
dundancy of  words,  was  never  again  wit- 
nessed. Even  to-day,  reading  their  books 
with  a  perfectly  cool  and  collected  state  of 
mind,  we  are  hurried  over  head  and  ears 
into  this  delusive  charm,  and  we  can  readily 
understand  what  effect  such  a  garrulity 
naturally  had  upon  an  injudicious,  straying 
populace. 

THE  JEWISH  ANSWER  TO    CHBISTIAN    ARGUING. 

It  requires  no  proof  that  it  was  an  utter 
impossibility  to  hold  a  quiet,  scientific  dis- 
cussion with  men  so  religiously  mad  as  these 
were.  Such  circumstances  prevented  an  ex- 
planation free  from  all  passion  and  fanati- 
cism.In  fact,the  Talmud  is  literally  filled  with 
humorous  and  witty  sayings,  testifying  how 
the  Jews  considered  themselves  and  their 
law  too  much  superior  to  condescend  to  de- 
bate the  question  with  them;  how  little  they 
troubled  themselves  to  measure  their 
strength  with  an  opponent,  who  brandished 
childish  weapons.  At  the  same  time  they 
were  well  aware  of  the  fact,  that  such  ideal 
preachings  would  spread  like  wild  fire 
among  the  ignorant  class,  and  where  sound 
arguments  failed,  fictions  conceptions  would 
succeed  among  classes  unacquainted  with 
the  original  sources.  Therefore,  the  Jewish 
teachers  prohibited  the  Jews  from  any  dis- 
cussion with  a  Christian.  AndTryphon  said 
"Sir,  it  were  good  for  us  if  we  obeyed  our 
teachers,  who  laid  down  a  law  that  we 
should  have  no  intercourse  with  any  of 
you,  and  that  we  should  not  have 
even  any  communication  with  you  on 
these  questions,  for  you  utter  many 
blasphemies,"  etc.  (Dial.  c.  38.)  There- 
fore the  hot-headed,  fanatical  Try  phon  in  his 
anger  exclaimed.  "It  is  permitted  to  burn 
the  writings  of  the  Christians,  even 
if  the  name  of  God  occurs  therein;  moreover, 
that  when  the  threatening  danger  is  nigh,  a 
Jew  should  rather  seek  refuge  in  a  Heathen 
temple,  before  taking  shelter  in  a  Christian 
church  ;  for  to  him  the  God  of  the  apostles 
was  not  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
an  idol.  What  should  Jewish  teachers  of 
the  Law  reply,  when  they  are  told  that  the 
"Hebrew  Oracles"  have  declared  that  the 


Logos  ia  a  second  god?  What  answer  should 
they  make,  when  the  Christians  try  to  per- 
suade them  that  Moses  himself  had  recog- 
niz«-d  two  Lords,  for  it  is  written:  "And 
the  Lord  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Go- 
morrah brimstone  and  fire,  from  the  Lord 
out  of  heaven?"  What  reply  should  he 
make,  when  they  boast  that  even  David  had 
glorified  the  Logos  in  his  psalms,  when  he 
said:  "By  the  word  of  God  the  heavens 
were  made."  And  in  another  place:  "He 
sendeth  his  word  and  healeth  them."  And 
again:  "The  Lord  says  to  my  Lord,  seat  thy 
self  to  my  right."  What  could  a  well  versed 
Jew  respond  when  he  stumbled  into  such  a 
cataract  of  Biblical  quotations,  pregnant 
with  endless  mentioniugs  of  the  Logos? 
What  rejoinder  to  their  vaunting  that  Job 
taught  the  Logos  by  the  name  of  Sophia 
and  that  Solomon  had  similiarly  spoken  of 
it?  What  else  could  the  prudent  Jew  do, 
at  such  ostentations  of  the  Logos  discovery, 
but  keep  perfectly  silent?  Should  he  ex- 
pound their  high-sounding  arguments, when 
they  referred  to  Aristobul  and  Philo,  au- 
thorities that  were  nothing  to  him,  but 
"oracles"  to  them?  Yes,  what  should  the 
earnest  typical  representative  of  Monothe- 
ism begin,  when  they  prove  from  passages, 
which  are  torn  from  all  connections,  meth- 
odically arranged,  leaving  entirely  out  of 
sight  their  original  place  and  importance, 
that  Abraham,  Jacob,  Moses,  Aaron,  and 
what  else  their  names  might  be,  the  long  list 
of  prophets  not  excluded,  had  thoroughly 
proven  the  doctrines  of  the  Logos,  that  the 
preachings  of  the  apostle  John  were  not  new; 
that  they  were  taught  in  the  Old  Testament 
many  and  many  years  before  him?  Here 
a  scientific  discussion  was  impossible.  The 
blows  of  logic  would  rebound  from  their 
armed  bosom,  fallacies  alone  could  gain  free 
admission.  There  was  but  one  answer,  and 
that  was  mere  indifference  to  all  this  frantic 
bustle,  a  fact,  which  manifests  itself  clearly 
in  the  dialogue  of  Justin  with  the  not  very 
scholarly  Tryphon.  To  the  many  pointed 
questions  of  Justin,  Tryphon  with  his  bril- 
liant, ready  answers  never  lacks  a  suitable 
passage;  be  it  a  biblical  passage,  an  extract 
irom  the  Heathen  literature,  or  any  fable. 
The  following  will  prove  this  assertion.  "In 
the  fables  of  those  who  are  called  Greeks,  it 
is  written  that  Perseus  was  begotten  of 
Danae,  who  was  a  virgin ;  he  who  was  called 
among  them  Zeus,  having  descended  on 
her  in  the  form  of  a  golden  shower.  And 
you  ought  to  feel  ashamed  when  you  make 
assertions  similar  to  theirs,  and  rather 
[should]  say  that  this  Jesus  was  born  man 
of  men.  And  if  you  prove  from  the  Scrip- 
tures that  He  is  the  Christ,  and  that  on  ac- 


—20— 


connt  of  having  led  a  life  conformed  to  the 
law,  and  perfect,  He  deserved  the  honor  of 
being  elected  to  be  Christ  [it  is  well"!;  but 
do  not  venture  to  tell  monstrous  phenome- 
na, lest  you  be  convicted  of  talking  foolishly 
like  the  Greeks."  (Dial.  c.  67.)  In  spite  of 
all  this,  the  assumed  airy  hypothesis  so 
vague  in  the  beginning,  gradually  stiffened 
to  a  pillar  of  Christianity,  which  was  too 
strong  to  be  shaken. 

THE  EXULTATION  OF  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE 
CHURCH  ON  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  PASSAGES 
QUOTED  BY  THE  PLATONIC  AMELIUS,  WHICH 
SPEAK  OF  THE  PROMULGATED  LOGOS  OF 
JOHN. 

We  naturally  ask  ourselves  what  part  has 
been  assigned  to  the  Platonic  school  in  this 
last  grandest  world  redeeming  drama? 
These,  of  course,  could  not  be  set  aside,  es- 
pecially since  the  Christian  propaganda 
would  no  longer  confine  itself  to  the  mea- 
gre, well-grazed  Jewish  fields ;  there  was  a 
greater  crop  to  be  reaped  from  the  large  fer- 
tile plains  of  Heathenism.  Also  this  is 
readily  understood  when  we  take  into  con.- 
sideration  all  their  previous  actions. 

Plato  and  his  school,  who  have  furnished 
all  the  ideas  necessary  for  the  structure  of 
the  Christian  church,  are  now  titled  with 
all  the  attending  pomp  and  ceremony  Pla- 
giarists par  excelle.  ce.  Step  by  step  their  op- 
ponents advance,  forever  hurling  it  in  their 
face.  You  have  never  been  able  to  produce 
an  original  thought,  vou  showed  masterly 
ability  in  copying,  in  remoulding  and  re- 
shaping another  man's  thoughts.  It  was  as 
easy  to  prove  all  this,  as  it  was  to  force  a 
Logos  upon  the  Old  Testament.  The  zeal 
they  displayed  in  this  noble  task  dimmed 
their  eye  and  mind  to  such  an  extent,  that 
it  was  now  absolutely  impossible  for  them 
to  form  any  pound  opinion;  their  decision 
was  biased,  and  for  their  religious  enthusi- 
asm there  existed  no  obstacle.  Let  us  ex- 
emplify:  Eusebius  finds  in  the  New-Platon- 
ist  Numenius  the  beautiful  words  of  John 
quoted  in  reference  to  the  Logos,  and  this 
amply  suffices  to  bring  him  into  the  seventh 
heaven  of  bliss.  He  does  not  ask  the  rea- 
son why  Numenius  finds  himself  necessi- 
tated to  quote  said  passage,  bestows  not  a 
glance  to  the  notes  which  accompany  this 
passage,  has  no  eye,  no  ear  for  his  com- 
mentary on  these  words  of  the  apostle, 
knows  not  a  word  about  the  by  no  means 
flattering  names  which  are  bountifully  lav- 
ished upon  Saint  John.  Eusebius sees  but 
one  thing,  and  it  puts  into  darkness  all 
others,  namely,  the  distinguished  Platonic 
philosopher  quotes  the  apostle  John,  which 
is  the  grandest  testimony  that  could  be 


granted  to  the  Logos.  And  what  an  abun- 
dance of  Christian  love  showers  this  father 
of  the  church  upon  the  head  of  this  mali- 
cious Heathen!  While  the  latter  would  not 
think  of  mentioning  that  author,  whose 
words  he  quotes,  but  by  giving  it  anon- 
ymously to  his  readers,  the  former  most 
graciously  shuts  his  eye  at  this  contempt, 
and  bestows  upon  him  the  most  flattering 
praises,  calls  him  "our  most  eminent,  and 
most  gifted  pupil  of  Plato,  one  who  is  best 
versed  in  the  Platonic  doctrine."  (Praep. 
Ev.  xi,  18.)  Had  he  studied  this  Numenius 
with  a  little  less  excitement,  and  with  a  lit- 
tle more  reflection  he  would  have  discov- 
ered at  once,  that  the  same  surprise  which 
overcame  him  at  the  moment  when  he  saw 
a  Heathen,  quote  the  apostle  John,  must 
naturally  have  mastered  the  feelings  of  Nu- 
menius, when  he  saw  the  original  secret  of 
his  school  openly  expatiated  upon  by  a  "bar- 
barian." 

This  philosopher  expresses  his  thoughts 
on  this  subject  most  clearly  when  he  says : 
"This  is,  indeed,  the  same  Logos  that  has 
existed  from  times  immemorial,  and  through 
which  all  that  exists  has  been  created.  It 
is  this  very  Logos  of  which  that  'Barbarian' 
boasts  that  it  has  been  in  existence  from, 
eternity,  that  it  is  God,  ...  so  that  one 
hearing  such  statements  would  actually  be- 
lieve that  it  is  Heraklitus  who  is  speaking 
thus."  (Praep.  Ev.  xi.  18.) 

But  there  is  no  remedy ;  Eusebius  is  deaf 
to  all  that  which  might  disturb  him  in  his 
religious  enthusiasm.  All  his  thoughts  and 
feelings  are  concentrated  upon  one  point, 
namely,  Numenius,  the  great  philosopher, 
had  read  the  words  of  John,  had  admired 
them,  and  that  by  this  testimony,  rendered 
by  a  Heathen  philosopher,  much  reputation 
for  the  Christian  Logos  was  acquired.  Cap- 
tivated by  this  grand  discovery,  he  expatiates 
upon  it  in  the  following  manner:  "Words 
like  these  Amelius  could  no  longer  convey 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  'Barbarian'  unless 
they  are  free  from  all  delusion  and  mystifi- 
cations. This  is  aa  undeniable  fact.  And 
that  he  who  is  called  the  "Barbarian"  is 
none  else  but  John,  the  Apostle,  surely  no 
one  will  doubt,  for  it  is  he  who  first  advanced 
this  doctrine,  who  first  of  all,  in  spreading 
the  doctrines  of  the  Redeemer,  began:  "In 
the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word 
was  with  God,  and  the  word  was  God.  The 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  All 
things  were  made  by  him  and  without  him 
was  not  anything  made  that  was  made,"  etc. 
(Praep.  Ev.  xi.  19.) 


—21— 


THE  EXULTATION  OF  THE  FATHERS  OF  THE 
CHURCH  ON  ACCOUNT  OF  A  DISCOVERY  OF 
A  TRINITY  IN  THE  WRITINGS  OF  PLATO. 

In  this  manner  they  lost  themselves  more 
and  more  in  their  fallacies.  The  dark  apes 
dawned,  forced  free  research  more  and  more 
to  the  background,  and  laid  violent  hands 
upon  the  former  influence  of  Plato  and  his 
school.  The  Trinity  was  now  erected; 
stripped  from  the  Jewish- heathenish  sup- 
port, it  stood  now  firm  upon  its  own  basis 
like  a  gigantic  tower.  Little  danger  did  it 
anticipate  from  the  philosophy  of  the 
Heathens  in  which  it  had  originated,  for  its 
followers  were  now  but  few,  and  these  were 
so  firm  in  the  adherence  to  their  old  belief 
that  Christianity  with  its.  new  religious 
training  could  n  it  shake  their  convictions 
But  if  any  one,  perchance,  came  across 
Plato  and  meditated  therein,  then  there  was 
no  end  to  his  surprise  and  ecstasy.* 


*  Basnage,  hist,  des  Juifs.  Llv.  iv.,  en.  4:  Cepend- 
ant,  cela  avoit  tenement  ebloui  les  Peres,  quepeu  s'en 
iallu  qu'ils  n'aient  fait  de  PJaton  nn  Chretien  avant 
la  Naissauce  du  Cdristisnisme.  "Que  Platon  sorte 
et  paroiesse  ici,"  s'ecrioitun Theologien  rtucinquieme 
Siecle;  c'est  vine  cnose  admirable  que  taut  de 
Siecles  avant  1' Accouctiement  de  la  Vieree  et  1'Incar- 
natiou  d'un  Dieu;  lon<temps  avaut  que  la  Trinite 


With  an  expression  indicating  surprise 
and  astonishment  he  stood  there,  could  not 
see  enough,  would  scarcely  trnst  to  his 
senses.  Did  he  not  find  in  the  works  which 
were  written  centuries  before  the  birth  of 
Christ  the  Trinity  most  excellent!  v  described? 
His  exultation  was  indescribable  when  he 
discovered  that  the  Logos  of  John  had  al- 
ready been  expounded  in  the  primitive  ages 
by  Heathen  philosophers.  He  wept  tears  of 
joy  at  this  discovery,  passionately  kissed 
the  books  of  Plato  and  devotedly  prayed  to 
God,  when  he  began  to  learn  that  the 
Trinity,  so  difficult  for  the  human  under- 
standing, was  nothing  new,  an  every  day 
doctrine  of  the  heathens. t 


de  Personnes  dans  une  seul  Essence  ait  ete  preche 
anx  Nations,  11  ait  par  un  Coup  hardi,  par  uti  (Jenie 
heureuz,  etun  stile  Inimitable,  parlede  Dieu  le  Here, 
de  la  Parole  du  Pere.  qui  etoit  son  Conm-il  etde 
1' Am  our  de  1'iin  et  de  1'autre.  qu'il  fm-ait  une 
Divinite  seule,  indivisible,  eternelle  et  Rouveraine. 

t  Ibid.  On  nous  represente  un  Simplicien,  Eveque 
de  Milan,  transporte  de  joie,  ou  trouvant  dans  Platon 
la  Trinite  atissi  clairement  expliquee  que  dans 
t'Evangile  de  Saint  Jean.  On  a  vu  d'aiureK  Ohretiens 
pleurer  de  joie  et  baiser  avec  Transport  le«t  Livres  de 
Platon.  On  a  rendu  Graces  a  I)k-u  de  oe  que  oe 
Doume  impenetrable  a  la  Kaison  iiunmin<>  u'etoit 
pas  etranger.  puisque  let)  Parens  I'uvuiem  coui»u. 


123794     8 


BOOKS  BY  ISAAC  M.  WISE. 


1-  JUDAISM,  Its  Doctrines  and  Unties.  A  brief  and  ex- 
haustive compendium  of  the  Judaism  of  to-day. 

Price,  65  Cents. 

2.  THE  MARTYRDOM  OF  JESUS.  .A  collection  and  com- 
parison of  all  the  historical  data  bearing  on  that  event. 
A  book  to  give  to  your  Christian  friends. 

Price,  paper,  75.  cents.     Cloth,  $1.00 


3.  THREE  LECTURES 

Price,  35  cents. 

4.  THE    COSMIC    GOD.      A    philosophical    treatise    from    a 

rationalistic    standpoint.      A    book    for    thinkers,  and 
students.  Price,  cloth,  $1.50.     Gilt,  $2.00 

?•>    tHE  WANDERING   JEW.     The  mission  of  Israel  in  his- 
tory.    A  brief  and  exhaustive  sketch  of  the  influence. 
of  Judaism  on  civilization.  Price,  25  cents. 

f^"Any  of  trie  above  Books  will  be  sent,  postage  paid,  -to  any  address,  on 
the  receipt  of  the  price  at  the  office  of 

THE  AMERICAN   ISRAELITE, 

No.   169  Elm  Street,  CINCINNATI,  O. 

THE  AMERICAN  ISRAELITE, 

THE    OLDEST    ENGLISH    JEW  ISH.  JOURNAL    IN    THg    WORLD. 

(Established  1854.) 
PRICE,  .....    #4.00  Per  Annum. 


GERMAN    .SUPPLEMENT    TO    "THK    AMKKJCAN    KSh AELtTK." 

PRICK,  -   $2.OO  Per' Annum. 

Both  Papers  to  one  address,  $5.OO  Per  Annum. 
SAMPLE  COPIES  FREE.  gar  SEND  FOR  ONE;  » 


